• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

DfT Plan to Demolish Disused Bridges and Tunnels

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Tough.

Looking after liabilities is their job.

If they don't like it, they should be replaced.
No doubt they are also working to a budget, prioritising (quite rightly) maintenance of assets that are being used rather than those that are not.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
Looking after liabilities is their job.

If they don't like it, they should be replaced.
No, their job - as directed - is to reduce the DfT's exposure to liability arising from the HRE. Within this mandate actions like the infilling at Great Musgrave and the abandonment of Queensbury Tunnel are valid courses of action.

The target of your anger should be the DfT, for choosing not to direct that the HRE be adequately preserved.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,371
Tough.

Looking after liabilities is their job.

If they don't like it, they should be replaced.
No, their job - as directed - is to reduce the DfT's exposure to liability arising from the HRE. Within this mandate actions like the infilling at Great Musgrave and the abandonment of Queensbury Tunnel are valid courses of action.

The target of your anger should be the DfT, for choosing not to direct that the HRE be adequately preserved.
I'd be pleased to be directed to something(web document?) that sets out what 'the job' is. And is there some kind of 'Annual Report' published?
 

HSP 2

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2019
Messages
640
Location
11B
Has anyone a link to Queensbury tunnel please, is that the one near to Bradford?

£5,000 to repoint Great Musgrave bridge, or infill at £124,000. Logic is that we did save the cost of repointing it for approx. 25 years and the bridge is now safe for 18 ton vehicles but the road is only passed for 17 tons (before the infill the bridge was passed for 17 tons).
 

Dougal2345

Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
547
The latest update from the HRE here

68 structures are under immediate threat, but the number is likely to reach several hundred in the longer term.

In Dorset, a contractor recently entered property adjacent to a bridge demolition site and cut down trees without notifying any of the three affected landowners or seeking their consent. Similar work has taken place near Wakefield. And in Barcombe, East Sussex, a contractor blocked up cracks in a bridge earmarked for infilling to prevent bats roosting or hibernating in them.
And the 'Battle for Barcombe Bridge' here:

 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,674
Location
Leeds
New item in the Guardian:


Campaigners fear the roads agency is pushing ahead with plans to destroy or fill with concrete more than a dozen Victorian bridges in England and Scotland despite a government pause after an outcry over “cultural vandalism”.

When National Highways poured 1,000 tonnes of concrete and aggregate under a bridge at Great Musgrave in Cumbria, there was a backlash that forced ministers to halt the programme in July.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that despite the pause, the agency has spent tens of thousands of pounds on the sites for the infill or demolition of 14 bridges from Kent to East Lothian. The agency says the work is part of routine maintenance but campaigners say it has the hallmarks of preparing for filling in or demolition.

In one email concerning plans to demolish a former railway bridge near Bridport in Dorset, a National Highways civil engineer said the agency was continuing to work on the scheme.
 

chiltern trev

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2011
Messages
385
Location
near Carlisle
In https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...ass-great-musgrave-bridge-request-26-01-2022/

Musgrave bridge request​

26 Jan, 2022 By Rob Horgan

Heritage railway groups have hit out at National Highways after being asked for information to help support the road operator’s retrospective planning application for the infilling of Great Musgrave bridge in Cumbria.
The infilling of the 8.4m single span masonry arch bridge was carried out by Amco Giffen on behalf of National Highways between May and July last year. It has since sparked controversy, with local campaign groups calling for the work to be reversed and engineers expressing “shame” in their profession after images of the infilling were published in national media outlets.
The infilling of the 160-year-old bridge effectively ended longstanding plans to establish a link between two heritage railways in Cumbria’s Eden Valley.
Following a nationwide backlash, Eden District Council informed National Highways that it will have to apply for retrospective planning permission to cover the infilling work which was carried out using emergency powers.
As part of the conditions, National Highways must file the application within a year of the infilling work starting (in other words, by 23 May).
It is understood that both Stainmore Railway Company and Eden Valley Railway have now been approached by National Highways to assist with their application.


The Great Musgrave bridge infilling has now been seeded with grass
Stainmore Railway Company project manager Mike Thompson said “he couldn’t believe” National Highways request for their help.
“We put our heart and soul into the [planned] railway,” Thompson said. “Great Musgrave bridge is a critical piece of infrastructure for us and infilling was a kick in the teeth. It came out of the blue and has made the task of reconnection much more difficult, increasing the costs involved unsustainably.
“We’ve been gearing up to oppose the planning application; then a letter arrived from National Highways, asking for details about our future plans - replacement structures, construction phases, land acquisition, fundraising, liability transfers and Parliamentary powers. I couldn’t believe what I was reading: they’ve taken a wrecking ball to our aspirations and they’re now seeking our help to justify their destructive actions.”
He added: “We’ve written a polite letter back, but we’re not appointing National Highways to represent our views to the local authority or providing them with ammunition to use against us. If the planning team needs to understand how we intend to reopen the line, we’re perfectly capable of telling them ourselves. But this application is specifically about the bridge and its infill, not the railway. They’re trying to muddy the waters by conflating two separate issues.”
Graeme Bickerdike, a member of The HRE Group (which has campaigned to stop further infilling of historic railway structures) said: “In these circumstances, seeking information from the two railways was crass and inexplicable. It shows a bizarre lack of judgement. Has National Highways learned nothing from a year of reputational damage through its questionable management of the Historical Railways Estate?”

National Highways has always stood by its decision to infill the bridge despite widespread criticism. An internal review of the Great Musgrave bridge infilling carried out at the end of last year ruled that the work was “necessary”.
Despite this, National Highways has vowed to remove the infill to accommodate the reinstatement of the railway if a viable future for the route is found. If that happens, the roads operator has drawn up a list of five potential strengthening options for the Great Musgrave bridge.
National Highways head of Historical Railways Estate programme Hélène Rossiter said: “We are preparing a planning application which will reiterate that the infilling at Great Musgrave will be removed, at no additional cost to the taxpayer, ahead of the proposed reinstatement of a railway between Appleby East and Kirkby Stephen East.
“We wrote to the heritage railway companies that comprise Eden Valley Railway Project to discuss the progress of their plans for the reopening of the line, including timescales and funding, so we could let the planning authority know when the infilling could likely be removed.
“Our thorough internal review determined last year’s infilling was vital to public safety, and preserving the structure until a long-term purpose is found. We’ve committed to reversing it if a viable future use for the track bed beneath the bridge is found, that has all necessary approvals and is ready to be delivered.”
As previously revealed by NCE, the cost of removing the infill alone is estimated to be between £80,000 and £90,000.
In order to bring the route under the structure back into full use, National Highways said that it would cost between £316,000 and £431,000. That includes the cost of infill reversal, repair costs, masonry repairs to the bridge, strengthening, maintenance and examinations.
The bridge is part of the Historical Railways Estate managed by National Highways on behalf of the DfT and comprises 3,100 bridges, tunnels and viaducts, including 77 listed structures.
Jacobs acts as the “sole provider” (designer) for the Historical Railways Estate and was last year reappointed for another seven years. Six contractors support Jacobs in carrying out any work, including Dyer & Butler and Balfour Beatty.
A pause on the entire programme was put in place earlier in the year following a nationwide backlash to the bridge infilling carried out in Great Musgrave.
 

AndyB28

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2018
Messages
73
Apologies if I've missed mention of this elsewhere but I notice that the Clifton Road bridge over the old GC Ruddington Station site appears to have suffered a similar fate to the Musgrave Lane bridge (at least it looks that way on Google maps). As it's a larger road closer to built-up areas I'm guessing this wasn't part of the same scheme being discussed here but I wondered if anyone knew any more about it? I'm fairly sure this is a relatively recent happening as I'm pretty sure there are photos of it on a site about the GC where it's still clear within the last couple of years. Won't help the current GC if they still have thoughts about a link to the Notts Metro!
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,252
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Apologies if I've missed mention of this elsewhere but I notice that the Clifton Road bridge over the old GC Ruddington Station site appears to have suffered a similar fate to the Musgrave Lane bridge (at least it looks that way on Google maps). As it's a larger road closer to built-up areas I'm guessing this wasn't part of the same scheme being discussed here but I wondered if anyone knew any more about it? I'm fairly sure this is a relatively recent happening as I'm pretty sure there are photos of it on a site about the GC where it's still clear within the last couple of years. Won't help the current GC if they still have thoughts about a link to the Notts Metro!
It's still there, but a cycle path has been built in front of it connecting both sides of the new development surrounding the former station site.
 

Attachments

  • Rudd.jpg
    Rudd.jpg
    948.7 KB · Views: 185

AndyB28

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2018
Messages
73
It's still there, but a cycle path has been built in front of it connecting both sides of the new development surrounding the former station site.
Ah! Many thanks fgwrich. The angle I was viewing at made it look like a complete infill.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
Update in New Civil Engineer as follows:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...0318_A/B test on subject&deliveryName=DM3714150

50 rail bridges and tunnels could escape National Highways demolition plans​

15 MAR, 2022 BY ROB HORGAN

Fifty historic railway structures originally earmarked for demolition or infilling may be spared after an independent review of National Highways plans found that they could be readily preserved for active travel schemes.
A government-ordered review carried out by Sustrans concludes that two-thirds of the 75 structures earmarked for demolition or infilling could be useful as part of the National Cycle Network (NCN) or as local cycling and walking routes.
Of those 50 schemes, 26 of them already have active travel route plans attached to them, including the Stoke Road Bridge within the South Downs National Park.
Sustrans report does, however, conclude that 25 of the schemes are unlikely to be useful as active travel corridors during the next 10 years. This does not necessarily mean that they will be demolished or infilled as Sustrans review did not consider other possible uses for the routes, such as reinstatement of historic railway lines. (Full breakdown of schemes below.)
The structures are part of the Historical Railways Estate managed by National Highways on behalf of the Department for Transport. The estate comprises 3,800 bridges, tunnels and viaducts, including 77 listed structures.
Jacobs acts as the "sole provider" (designer) for the Historical Railways Estate and is supported by six contractors including Dyer & Butler and Balfour Beatty.

A pause on the entire programme was put in place last year following a nationwide backlash to the bridge infilling carried out in Great Musgrave. Following that project, NCE readers expressed “shame” in their profession and called for better solutions to be adopted. In October, engineers and programme managers at National Highways told NCE that they stand by the “necessary” bridge infilling of the Great Musgrave bridge. They have however drawn up five possible bridge strengthening methods which could be implemented should the infill be removed

National Highways head of Historical Railways Estate programme Hélène Rossiter said: “We welcome the publication of the report by Sustrans. We will continue to work with local authorties and members of our Stakeholder Advisory Forum on any opportunities where the structures we manage may be given a new lease of life as part of future active travel plans.”
Sustans study was mainly desk based and as such it did not carry out any structural assessments. Therefore it recommends that the next steps should “include a more detailed assessment of structures to understand if and when they can move into Sustrans’ project pipeline”.

The would include determining the structural condition, planning permission and consents required, ecology and community support, as well as more comprehensive engagement with the local authority.
Sustrans report adds: “It is important to note that a structure may be useful for active travel in theory but not be fit for purpose in practice.
“This assessment is a pilot and does not include any assessment of the other 3,000 Historical Railways Estate structures, but the methodology developed for the priority structures could easily be scaled up in due course to assess others.
“We will learn from this pilot and then propose a review of all HRE structures on the basis of their usefulness for active travel.”
Graeme Bickerdike, a member of The HRE Group which is campaigning against National Highways’ programme of infilling and demolishing legacy railway structures, added: “We thank the Sustrans team for their considerable efforts in compiling the report. It demonstrates that two-thirds of the under-threat Historical Railways Estate structures have potential significance as we increasingly recognise the importance of developing an extensive network of local and strategic active travel routes as an alternative to carbon-emitting forms of transport.
“It’s worth noting that the one-third of structures considered unlikely to have future value only reflects a ten-year time horizon. As the report states, ‘An argument could be made for all the structures that, one day, they may be useful so this assessment needs to be seen in that light.’
“What’s needed more broadly is a change of culture within National Highways and the Department for Transport whereby the Estate is, by default, managed as an asset, not a liability. In this context, the NH/DfT Protocol Agreement needs to be reframed.”
He added: “But Sustrans’ report is just a first step. When will these 75 structures be evaluated for their heritage value and ecological significance? At least one is in a conservation area; another spans a Site of Special Scientific Interest; most form crucial parts of established wildlife corridors. And what about railway reopenings and heritage lines?
“We need a holistic understanding of the role historic bridges and tunnels can and do play in the 21st century before any decisions are made about infilling or demolition.”

Structures deemed useful for NCN:

  • Parkeston Essex
  • Ridgegrove Road Cornwall
  • Rome Street Carlisle
  • Scotland Street Glasgow
  • Bardon Road Leicestershire
  • Methley South Station Wakefield Infill
  • Low Ashyard, Hurlford East Ayrshire
  • Stoke Road Bridge Hampshire
  • Barrowland Lane Dorset
  • Tregray Bridge Cornwall
  • Greyhound Bridge Gloucestershire

Structures deemed useful for local projects (with plans already mooted):

  • Radford Road Warwickshire
  • Carmichael Street Glasgow
  • Paisley Road West Glasgow
  • Fenton East Lothian
  • Stow Maries Halt Essex
  • Green Lane / Dumpers Gloucestershire
  • Hambidge Road Gloucestershire
  • Chilsworthy Road Cornwall
  • Syreford Road bridge Gloucestershire
  • Weedon Warwickshire
  • Norton Hall Essex
  • Bridge Lane Staffordshire
  • Crows Castle Gloucestershire
  • Goshen Bridge Cornwall
  • Hackney Bottom West Berkshire

Structures deemed useful for local schemes (but don’t have plans in place):

  • Dalston Lane Hackney
  • Hillworth Road Wiltshire
  • Whitchurch Bridge Bath & NE Somerset
  • Haugh Head Wooler Northumberland
  • Crossley Street Wakefield
  • Walden Stubbs North Yorkshire
  • Knowle Viaduct East Sussex
  • Red Barn overbridge Shropshire
  • Church Lane East Sussex
  • Aldeby Bridge Norfolk
  • Melkington Northumberland
  • Collingbourne Ducis Wiltshire
  • Whittingham Station Northumberland
  • Grindley Brook Cheshire
  • Painters Bridge Essex
  • Leeds Bridge Norfolk
  • Farground Shropshire
  • Edge Lea Farm Cheshire
  • Braughing Station Hertfordshire
  • Cold Norton Halt Essex
  • Hovis (or Purls Hill) Essex
  • Southill Road Bedfordshire
  • Little Smeaton North Yorkshire
  • Eaton to Easton Road Leicestershire

Structures deemed not useful for active travel routes:

  • Debden Road Essex
  • Brasenose Road Tunnel Liverpool
  • Station Road Warwickshire
  • Glasgow Street North Ayrshire
  • Horspath Oxfordshire
  • Graig-yr-Helfa Road Rhondda Cynon Taff
  • Limekiln Road South Ayrshire
  • Luffness Mains East Lothian
  • Caythorpe Station Lincolnshire
  • Halt Farm Oxfordshire
  • Coxwold North Yorkshire
  • Great Alne Warwickshire
  • Old House Farm Essex
  • Bedcow East Dunbartonshire
  • Balmacassie Road Aberdeenshire Infill
  • Wingmore Straight Hill Kent
  • Cockwell Farm Rd Northants
  • Sewstern Bridge Leicestershire
  • Station Road, Southfleet Kent
  • Longswood Telford & Wrekin
  • Threadmill Burn North Ayrshire
  • Afon Cerist u/b Powys
  • Lintfield Bank South Lanarkshire
  • Mill Tack Road Aberdeenshire
  • Auchmacoy Aberdeenshire
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
Chiltern trev's last post, has, National Highways head of Historical Railways Estate programme Hélène Rossiter saying, “We are preparing a planning application which will reiterate that the infilling at Great Musgrave will be removed, at no additional cost to the taxpayer, ahead of the proposed reinstatement of a railway between Appleby East and Kirkby Stephen East.

If the tax payer is not to pay then who?

Sorry, could not work out how to show this as a quote.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,999
Chiltern trev's last post, has, National Highways head of Historical Railways Estate programme Hélène Rossiter saying, “We are preparing a planning application which will reiterate that the infilling at Great Musgrave will be removed, at no additional cost to the taxpayer, ahead of the proposed reinstatement of a railway between Appleby East and Kirkby Stephen East.

If the tax payer is not to pay then who?

Sorry, could not work out how to show this as a quote.
Good point - are we to conclude that Nat Highways staff have got to the point of failing to understand that their budgets and expenditure are not from the taxpayer? Do they think they are some kind of market organized company where they are selling their services to paying customers out of choice? I have come across staff working in public services, often where they are contracted out - who genuinely seem to think this is the case. But not usually at such a senior level...
 

DJ_K666

Member
Joined
5 May 2009
Messages
620
Location
Way too far north of 75A
Good point - are we to conclude that Nat Highways staff have got to the point of failing to understand that their budgets and expenditure are not from the taxpayer? Do they think they are some kind of market organized company where they are selling their services to paying customers out of choice? I have come across staff working in public services, often where they are contracted out - who genuinely seem to think this is the case. But not usually at such a senior level...
Sounds like incompetence to me
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451

The problem with this list is it is crayoning of the worst kind. Just because there's a "structure" in situ doesn't mean it is either suitable for future use nor that it shouldn't be removed because of changes to whatever it is crossing.

One such example (purely because I know it) on that list is Braughing Station in Herts. That station was on the old St Margarets to Buntingford line - that line isn't coming back in the next millenia, the station building is now privately owned. The bridge is slightly narrow, is on a curve in the road and is not of any unique or achitectural significance. So putting it on such a list is plain daft.

In this respect Sustrans approach is every bit as dubious as National Highways - more so in some ways because they aren't assessing whether the structures are suitable for both their uses in curremt times.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,999
A planning application was submitted early this month to Eden District Council, planning ref 22/0254, deadline 04 May 2022.

So if you wish to object, please do so now.

Here is a link which I hope works https://plansearch.eden.gov.uk/fastweb/detail.asp?AltRef=22/0254&ApplicationNumber=22/0254&AddressPrefix=&Postcode=&Submit=Search

And also on this Facebook page https://m.facebook.com/KirkbyStephenEast
This Guardian Report today


includes:
Since the agency submitted the application to Eden district council at the start of last month, the council’s planning department has received 795 objections and only nine expressions of support.
...
If the council rejects the application, NH will be obliged to restore the bridge to its former condition at an estimated cost of £431,000, in addition to the £124,000 it spent on the infilling work.
 

DJ_K666

Member
Joined
5 May 2009
Messages
620
Location
Way too far north of 75A
The problem with this list is it is crayoning of the worst kind. Just because there's a "structure" in situ doesn't mean it is either suitable for future use nor that it shouldn't be removed because of changes to whatever it is crossing.

One such example (purely because I know it) on that list is Braughing Station in Herts. That station was on the old St Margarets to Buntingford line - that line isn't coming back in the next millenia, the station building is now privately owned. The bridge is slightly narrow, is on a curve in the road and is not of any unique or achitectural significance. So putting it on such a list is plain daft.

In this respect Sustrans approach is every bit as dubious as National Highways - more so in some ways because they aren't assessing whether the structures are suitable for both their uses in curremt times.
Where was that one where the owner had built a 5" gauge mini railway through the platforms?
 

chiltern trev

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2011
Messages
385
Location
near Carlisle
Stainmore Railway Facebook page now has a 3 page letter from the HRE Group, summary is:

A detailed engineering report has found that Great Musgrave bridge...
* had no defects from overloading
* had a capacity of more than 44 tonnes
* posed no threat to public safety
* required no work.
We've written to Minister Baroness Vere to ask that she instructs National Highways to remove the infill.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=stainmore railway company
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,578
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
Perhaps a suitable compromise would be that the infilling must be removed when and if the railway up to either side of the bridge is rebuilt - What is the realistic likelihood of that being achieved ?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,276
Who pays for the upkeep of all these structures not infilled or demolished?

On the one hand DfT/HMT/Government wants railways to save money - on the other hand---
DfT pay, not the railway, as in not Network Rail. Previously it was a DfT sponsored British Railways Board (Residuary), which retained long term redundant infrastructure when Railtrack was first set up.

That’s presumably why DfT are trying to cut the costs, rather unsuccessfully.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,999
Who pays for the upkeep of all these structures not infilled or demolished?

On the one hand DfT/HMT/Government wants railways to save money - on the other hand---
Rather similar as to who pays for them if they are infilled I guess, since nothing is truly maintenance free, well not roads anyway. Ultimately the tax payer.

But the privatisation settlement did mean that they were removed from the railway industry's books.
 

Top