Next spring I'm going to have to revisit the access track/bridleway
which is deteriorating again despite regular topping up with MOT.

So thinking of casting in situ two 18 inch wide concrete "tank tracks"
for 150m!

Challenges will include:

1 keeping costs down.. mixing own concrete, doing a "section" at a
time.... or sod it and try and do 4m3 runs at once with small ready
mix trucks?

2 Keeping access open (incl vehicles) during concrete cure stages:-
Road forms or equivalent pegged for sides and a (possibly bolted down)
steel plate top for wheeled traffic whilst initial curing takes place
- how thick a plate? thinner is cheaper and easier, but at what
thinness will it bend/buckle and backfire??

3 Shaping the concrete to avoid sharp corner edges (horses etc) -
perhaps some sort of curved top (in section) road forms, or similar or
fabricate something to do the job... or will I be able to simply knock
the sharp edges off with a big hammer after a few days curing when
"mould" removed?

4 Do i need reinforcement? plan on 4inch average concrete depth for
cars, tranny vans, small oil tankers.

5 Any way I could easily replicate (or just give a passing impression
of) stone flags as I cast it? (other parts of the track have these
still in situ - it would be "nice" to give a nod to the vernacular..)

what does the group think? do-able? what've I forgotten/underestimated/
failed to appreciate etc--- you get the picture - Help!!

Cheers
JimK

On Dec 12, 4:20 pm, JimK realised the
subject was naff so changed it

JimK wrote:
Next spring I'm going to have to revisit the access track/bridleway
which is deteriorating again despite regular topping up with MOT.

So thinking of casting in situ two 18 inch wide concrete "tank tracks"
for 150m!

Challenges will include:

1 keeping costs down.. mixing own concrete, doing a "section" at a
time.... or sod it and try and do 4m3 runs at once with small ready
mix trucks?

2 Keeping access open (incl vehicles) during concrete cure stages:-
Road forms or equivalent pegged for sides and a (possibly bolted down)
steel plate top for wheeled traffic whilst initial curing takes place
- how thick a plate? thinner is cheaper and easier, but at what
thinness will it bend/buckle and backfire??

3 Shaping the concrete to avoid sharp corner edges (horses etc) -
perhaps some sort of curved top (in section) road forms, or similar or
fabricate something to do the job... or will I be able to simply knock
the sharp edges off with a big hammer after a few days curing when
"mould" removed?

4 Do i need reinforcement? plan on 4inch average concrete depth for
cars, tranny vans, small oil tankers.

5 Any way I could easily replicate (or just give a passing impression
of) stone flags as I cast it? (other parts of the track have these
still in situ - it would be "nice" to give a nod to the vernacular..)

what does the group think? do-able? what've I
forgotten/underestimated/ failed to appreciate etc--- you get the
picture - Help!!

Cheers
JimK


How wide is the overall path? - could you not do one full length track, rope
it off and allow drivers to use the other part of the path, then do the
other one a week later when the first has cured?

Steel plate will have to be at least 8mm, and thats gonna be expensive


--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008

On 12 Dec, 16:20, JimK wrote:
Next spring I'm going to have to revisit the access track/bridleway
which is deteriorating again despite regular topping up with MOT.

So thinking of casting in situ two 18 inch wide concrete "tank tracks"
for 150m!

Challenges will include:

1 keeping costs down.. mixing own concrete, doing a "section" at a
time.... or sod it and try and do 4m3 runs at once with small ready
mix trucks?

2 Keeping access open (incl vehicles) during concrete cure stages:-
Road forms or equivalent pegged for sides and a (possibly bolted down)
steel plate top for wheeled traffic whilst initial curing takes place
- how thick a plate? thinner is cheaper and easier, but at what
thinness will it bend/buckle and backfire??

3 Shaping the concrete to avoid sharp corner edges (horses etc) -
perhaps some sort of curved top (in section) road forms, or similar or
fabricate something to do the job... or will I be able to simply knock
the sharp edges off with a big hammer after a few days curing when
"mould" removed?

4 Do i need reinforcement? plan on 4inch average concrete depth for
cars, tranny vans, small oil tankers.

5 Any way I could easily replicate (or just give a passing impression
of) stone flags as I cast it? (other parts of the track have these
still in situ - it would be "nice" to give a nod to the vernacular..)

what does the group think? do-able? what've I forgotten/underestimated/
failed to appreciate etc--- you get the picture - Help!!

Cheers
JimK

As a rider, I'm delighted that you are not proposing to make the whole
width of bridleway into a solid concrete road. Horse traffic is best
provided for by a firm but yielding surface. Concrete or tarmac do not
make for compatibility with hooves.

JimK wrote:
Next spring I'm going to have to revisit the access track/bridleway
which is deteriorating again despite regular topping up with MOT.

So thinking of casting in situ two 18 inch wide concrete "tank tracks"
for 150m!

Challenges will include:

1 keeping costs down.. mixing own concrete, doing a "section" at a
time.... or sod it and try and do 4m3 runs at once with small ready
mix trucks?

trying to mix 15m3 of concrete manually is a thankless task, readymixed is
the way to go, but this is likely to cost you over a grand



2 Keeping access open (incl vehicles) during concrete cure stages:-
Road forms or equivalent pegged for sides and a (possibly bolted down)
steel plate top for wheeled traffic whilst initial curing takes place
- how thick a plate? thinner is cheaper and easier, but at what
thinness will it bend/buckle and backfire??

3 Shaping the concrete to avoid sharp corner edges (horses etc) -
perhaps some sort of curved top (in section) road forms, or similar or
fabricate something to do the job... or will I be able to simply knock
the sharp edges off with a big hammer after a few days curing when
"mould" removed?

you can run a spade along the sharp edge and round it off a bit.


4 Do i need reinforcement? plan on 4inch average concrete depth for
cars, tranny vans, small oil tankers.


4 inch will probably be ok, but I'd get some thin steel reinforcing in it,
just to give you a few extra years

5 Any way I could easily replicate (or just give a passing impression
of) stone flags as I cast it? (other parts of the track have these
still in situ - it would be "nice" to give a nod to the vernacular..)

you can run a jointer across it before it finishes curing, to give it some
'joints', but trying to mould any kind of pattern onto the face would be
time consuming and probably a waste of time as I wouldn't expect it to last
very long.

--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008

On Dec 12, 5:29 pm, cynic wrote:
On 12 Dec, 16:20, JimK wrote:



Next spring I'm going to have to revisit the access track/bridleway
which is deteriorating again despite regular topping up with MOT.

So thinking of casting in situ two 18 inch wide concrete "tank tracks"
for 150m!

Challenges will include:

1 keeping costs down.. mixing own concrete, doing a "section" at a
time.... or sod it and try and do 4m3 runs at once with small ready
mix trucks?

2 Keeping access open (incl vehicles) during concrete cure stages:-
Road forms or equivalent pegged for sides and a (possibly bolted down)
steel plate top for wheeled traffic whilst initial curing takes place
- how thick a plate? thinner is cheaper and easier, but at what
thinness will it bend/buckle and backfire??

3 Shaping the concrete to avoid sharp corner edges (horses etc) -
perhaps some sort of curved top (in section) road forms, or similar or
fabricate something to do the job... or will I be able to simply knock
the sharp edges off with a big hammer after a few days curing when
"mould" removed?

4 Do i need reinforcement? plan on 4inch average concrete depth for
cars, tranny vans, small oil tankers.

5 Any way I could easily replicate (or just give a passing impression
of) stone flags as I cast it? (other parts of the track have these
still in situ - it would be "nice" to give a nod to the vernacular..)

what does the group think? do-able? what've I forgotten/underestimated/
failed to appreciate etc--- you get the picture - Help!!

Cheers
JimK

As a rider, I'm delighted that you are not proposing to make the whole
width of bridleway into a solid concrete road. Horse traffic is best
provided for by a firm but yielding surface. Concrete or tarmac do not
make for compatibility with hooves.


mmm I shall have to point out to those equine riding whingers the
favour I am doing them!

The project should hopefully curtail the "free for all gallop" that
seems to be a regular abuse by some riiders judging by the hoof marks/
divots......

JimK

On Dec 12, 5:17 pm, "Phil L" wrote:
JimK wrote:
Next spring I'm going to have to revisit the access track/bridleway
which is deteriorating again despite regular topping up with MOT.

So thinking of casting in situ two 18 inch wide concrete "tank tracks"
for 150m!

Challenges will include:

1 keeping costs down.. mixing own concrete, doing a "section" at a
time.... or sod it and try and do 4m3 runs at once with small ready
mix trucks?

2 Keeping access open (incl vehicles) during concrete cure stages:-
Road forms or equivalent pegged for sides and a (possibly bolted down)
steel plate top for wheeled traffic whilst initial curing takes place
- how thick a plate? thinner is cheaper and easier, but at what
thinness will it bend/buckle and backfire??

3 Shaping the concrete to avoid sharp corner edges (horses etc) -
perhaps some sort of curved top (in section) road forms, or similar or
fabricate something to do the job... or will I be able to simply knock
the sharp edges off with a big hammer after a few days curing when
"mould" removed?

4 Do i need reinforcement? plan on 4inch average concrete depth for
cars, tranny vans, small oil tankers.

5 Any way I could easily replicate (or just give a passing impression
of) stone flags as I cast it? (other parts of the track have these
still in situ - it would be "nice" to give a nod to the vernacular..)

what does the group think? do-able? what've I
forgotten/underestimated/ failed to appreciate etc--- you get the
picture - Help!!

Cheers
JimK

How wide is the overall path? - could you not do one full length track, rope
it off and allow drivers to use the other part of the path, then do the
other one a week later when the first has cured?

not wide enough afraid.

Steel plate will have to be at least 8mm, and thats gonna be expensive

how much is expensive?

I'm imagining 18" wide X "liftable lengths" - load 500kgs say (2t /4
wheels) spread over contact patch of average car tyre (4"x2"?) ... a
few vehicle movements a day....it will have curing concrete right
under it too.....

Cheers
JimK

On Dec 12, 7:13 pm, JimK wrote:
On Dec 12, 5:17 pm, "Phil L" wrote:



JimK wrote:
Next spring I'm going to have to revisit the access track/bridleway
which is deteriorating again despite regular topping up with MOT.

So thinking of casting in situ two 18 inch wide concrete "tank tracks"
for 150m!

Challenges will include:

1 keeping costs down.. mixing own concrete, doing a "section" at a
time.... or sod it and try and do 4m3 runs at once with small ready
mix trucks?

2 Keeping access open (incl vehicles) during concrete cure stages:-
Road forms or equivalent pegged for sides and a (possibly bolted down)
steel plate top for wheeled traffic whilst initial curing takes place
- how thick a plate? thinner is cheaper and easier, but at what
thinness will it bend/buckle and backfire??

3 Shaping the concrete to avoid sharp corner edges (horses etc) -
perhaps some sort of curved top (in section) road forms, or similar or
fabricate something to do the job... or will I be able to simply knock
the sharp edges off with a big hammer after a few days curing when
"mould" removed?

4 Do i need reinforcement? plan on 4inch average concrete depth for
cars, tranny vans, small oil tankers.

5 Any way I could easily replicate (or just give a passing impression
of) stone flags as I cast it? (other parts of the track have these
still in situ - it would be "nice" to give a nod to the vernacular..)

what does the group think? do-able? what've I
forgotten/underestimated/ failed to appreciate etc--- you get the
picture - Help!!

Cheers
JimK

How wide is the overall path? - could you not do one full length track, rope
it off and allow drivers to use the other part of the path, then do the
other one a week later when the first has cured?

not wide enough afraid.

Steel plate will have to be at least 8mm, and thats gonna be expensive

how much is expensive?

I'm imagining 18" wide X "liftable lengths" - load 500kgs say (2t /4
wheels) spread over contact patch of average car tyre (4"x2"?) ... a
few vehicle movements a day....it will have curing concrete right
under it too.....

Cheers
JimK

extra rad thought - timber top? ply? how thick rqd?

cheers
JimK

JimK
wibbled on Saturday 12 December 2009 19:13

On Dec 12, 5:17 pm, "Phil L" wrote:

How wide is the overall path? - could you not do one full length track,
rope it off and allow drivers to use the other part of the path, then do
the other one a week later when the first has cured?

not wide enough afraid.

Is it not wide enough to set one track at a time, allowing vehicles to drive
straddling it, then the other track with the vehicles straddling that one?

Or is this road just a vehicle width?

Off the wall idea:

Could you work with a "precast" approach? Cast the tracks in the centre of
the road, including reinforcing mesh, then slide them across by the 2-3'
required to have them in the correct place? That will limit you to perhaps
2-3m cast lengths.

Assuming you were planning on having a digger handy for trenching with the
direct pour approach, the digger might be able to drag and drop them into
the trenches that you cut at the end. Disadvantage: you need to either cast
flat and trench flat so the strips bed well enough, or line the trench with
some sand and be fairly confident of bedding them. 2nd disadvantage - lots
of joints.

Dunno - maybe there are improvements to that silly suggestion that might
lead to something that would work?


Steel plate will have to be at least 8mm, and thats gonna be expensive

how much is expensive?

I'm imagining 18" wide X "liftable lengths" - load 500kgs say (2t /4
wheels) spread over contact patch of average car tyre (4"x2"?) ... a
few vehicle movements a day....it will have curing concrete right
under it too.....

Cheers
JimK

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Dec 12, 7:36 pm, Tim W wrote:

Or is this road just a vehicle width?

yup single track - just!

Off the wall idea:

Could you work with a "precast" approach? Cast the tracks in the centre of
the road, including reinforcing mesh, then slide them across by the 2-3'
required to have them in the correct place? That will limit you to perhaps
2-3m cast lengths.

Assuming you were planning on having a digger handy for trenching with the
direct pour approach, the digger might be able to drag and drop them into
the trenches that you cut at the end. Disadvantage: you need to either cast
flat and trench flat so the strips bed well enough, or line the trench with
some sand and be fairly confident of bedding them.

mmm I'd not thought of exactly that approach (i.e. using centre) but
was hoping to avoid digger expenses altogether plus problem of what to
with (almost) perfectly good MOT etc that will be generated - it;s a
perfect sub base for concrete after all !!
also casting in situ will (i hope) ensure "perfect" contact with the
minor undulations of the current surface thus minimising early
cracking/failure etc?

2nd disadvantage - lots of joints.

er not sure... I was kind of expecting them to be needed re expansion?
- and they would be there anyway if I proceed with my rough plan A of
little and often....

Dunno - maybe there are improvements to that silly suggestion that might
lead to something that would work?

cheers
JimK

On Dec 12, 4:20*pm, JimK wrote:
Next spring I'm going to have to revisit the access track/bridleway
which is deteriorating again despite regular topping up with MOT.

So thinking of casting in situ two 18 inch wide concrete "tank tracks"
for 150m!

Challenges will include:

1 keeping costs down.. mixing own concrete, doing a "section" at a
time.... or sod it and try and do 4m3 runs at once with small ready
mix trucks?

2 Keeping access open (incl vehicles) during concrete cure stages:-
Road forms or equivalent pegged for sides and a (possibly bolted down)
steel plate top for wheeled traffic whilst initial curing takes place
- how thick a plate? thinner is cheaper and easier, but at what
thinness will it bend/buckle and backfire??

3 Shaping the concrete to avoid sharp corner edges (horses etc) -
perhaps some sort of curved top (in section) road forms, or similar or
fabricate something to do the job... or will I be able to simply knock
the sharp edges off with a big hammer after a few days curing when
"mould" removed?

4 Do i need reinforcement? plan on 4inch average concrete depth for
cars, tranny vans, small oil tankers.

5 Any way I could easily replicate (or just give a passing impression
of) stone flags as I cast it? (other parts of the track have these
still in situ - it would be "nice" to give a nod to the vernacular..)

what does the group think? do-able? what've I forgotten/underestimated/
failed to appreciate etc--- you get the picture - Help!!

Cheers
JimK


Anyone know if this is workable?

Is there any possibility of repairing the MOT1 where needed, rolling
or whacking it, then pouring a binder on/in? Such as cement slurry or
tar. Then adding a tar topcoat to stop rain saturating and freezing.

There's then need to close off road access for curing. Also no need to
but the sand or stone parts of the concrete. A 3rd is far less and
easier mixing.


NT

NT
wibbled on Saturday 12 December 2009 22:22

Anyone know if this is workable?

Is there any possibility of repairing the MOT1 where needed, rolling
or whacking it, then pouring a binder on/in? Such as cement slurry or
tar. Then adding a tar topcoat to stop rain saturating and freezing.

There's then need to close off road access for curing. Also no need to
but the sand or stone parts of the concrete. A 3rd is far less and
easier mixing.


NT

Now that you mention it, perhaps spraying with tar would be an option. As
long as there is a clean (ie un muddy) top layer, then it will tend to
create a weak tarmac (weak because it won't get fully between the rocks, but
it out to generally bind them).

However, if the OP can't keep MOT down, I'm assuming that the underying
ground is very unstable?

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

Plastic mesh with grass?
Basically something to bind the MOT together, paying for concrete is a
lot of effort, money & future expensive repairs (just pushes the
repairs further apart).

JimK
wibbled on Saturday 12 December 2009 20:06

On Dec 12, 7:36 pm, Tim W wrote:

Or is this road just a vehicle width?

yup single track - just!

Off the wall idea:

Could you work with a "precast" approach? Cast the tracks in the centre
of the road, including reinforcing mesh, then slide them across by the
2-3' required to have them in the correct place? That will limit you to
perhaps 2-3m cast lengths.

Assuming you were planning on having a digger handy for trenching with
the direct pour approach, the digger might be able to drag and drop them
into the trenches that you cut at the end. Disadvantage: you need to
either cast flat and trench flat so the strips bed well enough, or line
the trench with some sand and be fairly confident of bedding them.

mmm I'd not thought of exactly that approach (i.e. using centre) but
was hoping to avoid digger expenses altogether plus problem of what to
with (almost) perfectly good MOT etc that will be generated - it;s a
perfect sub base for concrete after all !!
also casting in situ will (i hope) ensure "perfect" contact with the
minor undulations of the current surface thus minimising early
cracking/failure etc?

It's unlikely to fail if you drop a bit of bar in it as you go (I thought
about mesh, but a couple of lenghts of light rebar would probably be good
enough). But of course, it's all more complications.

Anyway, if you don't want a digger, then it will be painful sliding what are
basically large cast beams around.

2nd disadvantage - lots of joints.

er not sure... I was kind of expecting them to be needed re expansion?
- and they would be there anyway if I proceed with my rough plan A of
little and often....

True

So in all, you are planning on pouring concrete on top rather than flush
with the existing roadway? That makes a difference...

Just to clarify - how long could you hold off vehicle traffic after each
pour? How long could you avoid anything larger than a car? You might get
away with a car on top relatively quickly. 10 tons of fuel oil laden tanker
would be different though.


--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

"JimK" wrote in message
...

mmm I'd not thought of exactly that approach (i.e. using centre) but
was hoping to avoid digger expenses altogether plus problem of what to
with (almost) perfectly good MOT etc that will be generated - it;s a
perfect sub base for concrete after all !!

Are you sure the problem isn't a lack of compaction on the MOT?
Have you run a road roller over it?

On Dec 12, 11:32*pm, Tim W wrote:
NT
* wibbled on Saturday 12 December 2009 22:22

Anyone know if this is workable?

Is there any possibility of repairing the MOT1 where needed, rolling
or whacking it, then pouring a binder on/in? Such as cement slurry or
tar. Then adding a tar topcoat to stop rain saturating and freezing.

There's then need to close off road access for curing. Also no need to
but the sand or stone parts of the concrete. A 3rd is far less and
easier mixing.

NT

Now that you mention it, perhaps spraying with tar would be an option. As
long as there is a clean (ie un muddy) top layer, then it will tend to
create a weak tarmac (weak because it won't get fully between the rocks, but
it out to generally bind them).

However, if the OP can't keep MOT down, I'm assuming that the underying
ground is very unstable?

I suppose really the only permanent solution is to dig the road up and
lay enough depth of hardcore and MOT1, roller it, then add tarmac.
Anything less will break up sooner or later. Its a life versus budget
call. Concrete roads do last decades, but there's no chance of
vehicles passing for days.


NT

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"JimK" wrote in message
...

mmm I'd not thought of exactly that approach (i.e. using centre) but
was hoping to avoid digger expenses altogether plus problem of what to
with (almost) perfectly good MOT etc that will be generated - it;s a
perfect sub base for concrete after all !!

Are you sure the problem isn't a lack of compaction on the MOT?
Have you run a road roller over it?

Groundwork Trust laid a crushed concrete topping on our by-way 3 years
ago. I have watched the appearance of *holes* since then. The lack of a
significant fall and proper drainage led to initial puddling and then
hole creation.

Fingers have been pointed at heavy farm vehicles but these rarely move
at more than 6-8mph and have cleated tyres which tend not to flush water
out of puddles. I believe the cause is car traffic probably travelling
at less than 20mph. Any water standing on the surface is flushed away
together with any grit or fines. These form *walls* around depressions.
Slight surface depressions collect more water and accelerate the
process. Eventually the hole reaches 2" depth with another 1/2" wall and
close to traffic calming bump height!

At a rough estimate there are about 20 vehicle movements per day: 10 in
and 10 out. Mainly intellectually challenged folk who ignore the *no
through road* sign in obedience to their navigator instructions.

Jim has not explained the legal status of the route but it is clearly
very narrow and also used by horse riders. If this is a bridleway with
vehicle access rights he should expect strong resistance to any
interference with the surface unless agreed with the local Highways
officer. I think concrete *rails* 4" above the main surface would be
considered dangerous to other users. I know he is trying to do this at
minimal cost but think the concrete should be in shallow trenches with
the surplus MOT used to fill the middle.

A much cheaper alternative would be to level off the holes with a
coarser material than MOT as soon as they appear.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Dec 13, 9:11 am, Tim Lamb wrote:
Groundwork Trust laid a crushed concrete topping on our by-way 3 years
ago. I have watched the appearance of *holes* since then. The lack of a
significant fall and proper drainage led to initial puddling and then
hole creation.

Fingers have been pointed at heavy farm vehicles but these rarely move
at more than 6-8mph and have cleated tyres which tend not to flush water
out of puddles. I believe the cause is car traffic probably travelling
at less than 20mph. Any water standing on the surface is flushed away
together with any grit or fines. These form *walls* around depressions.
Slight surface depressions collect more water and accelerate the
process. Eventually the hole reaches 2" depth with another 1/2" wall and
close to traffic calming bump height!

exactly correct!
we have bad/no drainage problems outside of my control (different
owners either side)


At a rough estimate there are about 20 vehicle movements per day: 10 in
and 10 out. Mainly intellectually challenged folk who ignore the *no
through road* sign in obedience to their navigator instructions.

Jim has not explained the legal status of the route but it is clearly
very narrow and also used by horse riders. If this is a bridleway with
vehicle access rights he should expect strong resistance to any
interference with the surface unless agreed with the local Highways
officer.

nearly - correctly it is my road upon which there are rights for the
rest of the world to ride horses, walk and cycle
It's primary purpose is access for me to my property not for anything
else - that's secondary...like other highways...

I think concrete *rails* 4" above the main surface would be
considered dangerous to other users.

hence my plan to round the edges of the concrete (see OP)
how else will it be dangerous? the middle will eventually start to
fill up with horse sh1t/grass anyway?

I know he is trying to do this at
minimal cost but think the concrete should be in shallow trenches with
the surplus MOT used to fill the middle.

fill the middle ? if concrete is trenched - what middle?

A much cheaper alternative would be to level off the holes with a
coarser material than MOT as soon as they appear.

what sort of material do you have in mind?

cheers
JimK

On Dec 12, 11:37 pm, "js.b1" wrote:
Plastic mesh with grass?

you seen how much they want for it?!?!

Basically something to bind the MOT together, paying for concrete is a
lot of effort, money & future expensive repairs (just pushes the
repairs further apart).

sounds OK to me :))

JimK

On Dec 12, 11:37 pm, Tim W wrote:
JimK
wibbled on Saturday 12 December 2009 20:06



On Dec 12, 7:36 pm, Tim W wrote:

Or is this road just a vehicle width?

yup single track - just!

Off the wall idea:

Could you work with a "precast" approach? Cast the tracks in the centre
of the road, including reinforcing mesh, then slide them across by the
2-3' required to have them in the correct place? That will limit you to
perhaps 2-3m cast lengths.

Assuming you were planning on having a digger handy for trenching with
the direct pour approach, the digger might be able to drag and drop them
into the trenches that you cut at the end. Disadvantage: you need to
either cast flat and trench flat so the strips bed well enough, or line
the trench with some sand and be fairly confident of bedding them.

mmm I'd not thought of exactly that approach (i.e. using centre) but
was hoping to avoid digger expenses altogether plus problem of what to
with (almost) perfectly good MOT etc that will be generated - it;s a
perfect sub base for concrete after all !!
also casting in situ will (i hope) ensure "perfect" contact with the
minor undulations of the current surface thus minimising early
cracking/failure etc?

It's unlikely to fail if you drop a bit of bar in it as you go (I thought
about mesh, but a couple of lenghts of light rebar would probably be good
enough). But of course, it's all more complications.

Anyway, if you don't want a digger, then it will be painful sliding what are
basically large cast beams around.

2nd disadvantage - lots of joints.

er not sure... I was kind of expecting them to be needed re expansion?
- and they would be there anyway if I proceed with my rough plan A of
little and often....

True

So in all, you are planning on pouring concrete on top rather than flush
with the existing roadway? That makes a difference...

Yup that is my plan A (sorry if not clear in OP)

Just to clarify - how long could you hold off vehicle traffic after each
pour?

overnight probly

How long could you avoid anything larger than a car?

months

You might get
away with a car on top relatively quickly. 10 tons of fuel oil laden tanker
would be different though.

mmm how quicks relatively quickly!?

cheers
JimK

JimK
wibbled on Sunday 13 December 2009 10:01


mmm how quicks relatively quickly!?

cheers
JimK

Hard to say. Concrete is pretty firm after an overnight set, but not at all
strong. But if it is perfectly bedded, you *might* get away with a car
driven carefully if the underlying ground is solid which it should be if
it's had MOT hammered into it for the last umpteen years. Of course the next
24 hours will see a big improvement.


If it were me, I might try to give the concrete 24h, then suck it and see.
Maybe barrow mix a short test strip to avoid wasting 4m3 if it all goes
pear shaped.

There's a substantial risk it will crack, but if it doesn't, the rest of the
150 yards becomes a much easier job.

How thick do you expect to pour and are you planning any reinforcement?



--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Dec 13, 10:21 am, Tim W wrote:
JimK
wibbled on Sunday 13 December 2009 10:01



mmm how quicks relatively quickly!?

cheers
JimK

Hard to say. Concrete is pretty firm after an overnight set, but not at all
strong. But if it is perfectly bedded, you *might* get away with a car
driven carefully if the underlying ground is solid which it should be if
it's had MOT hammered into it for the last umpteen years. Of course the next
24 hours will see a big improvement.

hence my pondering how I could put a lid on it to spread the wheel
loads whilst I get a reasonable cure - steel plate seems costly -
maybe thick ply would do?

If it were me, I might try to give the concrete 24h, then suck it and see..
Maybe barrow mix a short test strip to avoid wasting 4m3 if it all goes
pear shaped.

There's a substantial risk it will crack, but if it doesn't, the rest of the
150 yards becomes a much easier job.

How thick do you expect to pour and are you planning any reinforcement?

was heading for 4 inch average without any steel - worth adding some? £
£££?!

cheers
JimK

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:11:24 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:

At a rough estimate there are about 20 vehicle movements per day: 10 in
and 10 out. Mainly intellectually challenged folk who ignore the *no
through road* sign in obedience to their navigator instructions.

Reduce the traffic, fit a gate as this is a bridleway make sure it
can be opened/closed from horse back.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Dec 13, 12:44 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:11:24 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:
At a rough estimate there are about 20 vehicle movements per day: 10 in
and 10 out. Mainly intellectually challenged folk who ignore the *no
through road* sign in obedience to their navigator instructions.

Reduce the traffic, fit a gate as this is a bridleway make sure it
can be opened/closed from horse back.

--
Cheers
Dave.

may be worth Tim trying a gate but IMHO militant nag hackers tend to
not close it after themselves.....

isn't there also some requirement for there to have been a gate there
before?? or evidence such as hinges on posts/stone gate posts etc?

JimK

In message
,
JimK writes
nearly - correctly it is my road upon which there are rights for the
rest of the world to ride horses, walk and cycle
It's primary purpose is access for me to my property not for anything
else - that's secondary...like other highways...

Hmm.. sounds like a bridleway. Somebody has to own the land it stands
on.

I think concrete *rails* 4" above the main surface would be
considered dangerous to other users.

hence my plan to round the edges of the concrete (see OP)
how else will it be dangerous? the middle will eventually start to
fill up with horse sh1t/grass anyway?

I know he is trying to do this at
minimal cost but think the concrete should be in shallow trenches with
the surplus MOT used to fill the middle.

fill the middle ? if concrete is trenched - what middle?

Lets say you trenched at 2" shuttered and poured 4" you would have 2"
deep gap in the middle. M/c and road former hire, concrete plus a final
roll, this job is going to cost.

A much cheaper alternative would be to level off the holes with a
coarser material than MOT as soon as they appear.


what sort of material do you have in mind?

Crushed concrete. You can get different sizes. I think a 20 ton load is
80ukp here. If there is any chance this is a bridleway (check the
definitive map) you really must discuss this with the Highways officer.
They are usually friendly and may have access to *funds*. Our work was
paid for by the tipping tax which is meant to be spent locally.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...

Fingers have been pointed at heavy farm vehicles but these rarely move at
more than 6-8mph and have cleated tyres which tend not to flush water out
of puddles. I believe the cause is car traffic probably travelling at less
than 20mph. Any water standing on the surface is flushed away together
with any grit or fines.


Wouldn't MOT type 3 avoid this?
It has about 30% cavities after compaction so the water drains through.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:11:24 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:

At a rough estimate there are about 20 vehicle movements per day: 10 in
and 10 out. Mainly intellectually challenged folk who ignore the *no
through road* sign in obedience to their navigator instructions.

Reduce the traffic, fit a gate as this is a bridleway make sure it
can be opened/closed from horse back.

Nice thought:-)

It is actually a BOAT; by-way open to all traffic. Legally it should be
open at both ends, hence the Navigator problem. Lafarge own the rest of
it and they have padlocked gates to prevent fly-tipping.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
.. .

Fingers have been pointed at heavy farm vehicles but these rarely
move at more than 6-8mph and have cleated tyres which tend not to
flush water out of puddles. I believe the cause is car traffic
probably travelling at less than 20mph. Any water standing on the
surface is flushed away together with any grit or fines.


Wouldn't MOT type 3 avoid this?
It has about 30% cavities after compaction so the water drains through.

Long story... this lane may date back to Roman times and apart from
agricultural access was used to reach gravel and hoggin on the high
ground. Narrow lane, hoggin surface and reasonable fall to drain surface
water to river.

Come the village by-pass! Because of the river valley, much of the new
road is on an embankment. Embankments cost money as do bridges capable
of taking dairy cows and combine harvesters. The upshot was that the
lane was *lowered* to provide space (3m) for farm traffic and the lane
fall reduced to something like 1:200 or none at all if the river happens
to flood!

The consequence is that the underlying soil is wet for most of the
Winter and the holes are permanent puddles. If I were trying to cart
regular straw bales at 40kph this might be a problem but you can't get
many rings of bales under a 3m bridge and I don't have any tractors
capable of such speeds:-)

regards



--
Tim Lamb

On 13 Dec, 14:19, JimK wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:44 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:11:24 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:
At a rough estimate there are about 20 vehicle movements per day: 10 in
and 10 out. Mainly intellectually challenged folk who ignore the *no
through road* sign in obedience to their navigator instructions.

Reduce the traffic, fit a gate as this is a bridleway make sure it
can be opened/closed from horse back.

--
Cheers
Dave.

may be worth Tim trying a gate but IMHO militant nag hackers tend to
not close it after themselves.....

isn't there also some requirement for there to have been a gate there
before?? or evidence such as hinges on posts/stone gate posts etc?

JimK

Not all riders are militant but most do object to reduction in their
rights (who on this earth doesn't)
Simply putting up a gate is not allowed but if you contact your local
BHS Access Officer to discuss the matter you may find you have some
useful suggestions and helpful advice. You don't say where you are but
google for the BHS head office at Stoneleigh and follow the links.
The unannounced arrival of a gate across a bridleway is almost
guaranteed to start an expensive fight whereas proper consultation and
a willingness to take advice can easily oil the wheels. You may also
like to contact your local county councils rights of way department.
Generally if a gate is operable from horseback it can be arranged to
fall gently shut which solves the closure problem

On Dec 13, 6:15 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
JimK writes

nearly - correctly it is my road upon which there are rights for the
rest of the world to ride horses, walk and cycle
It's primary purpose is access for me to my property not for anything
else - that's secondary...like other highways...

Hmm.. sounds like a bridleway.

No. If it were just a bridleway by definition I wouldn't be legally
allowed to access my property by vehicle would I ?

Somebody has to own the land it stands
on.

yes - 3 guesses who?

Cheers
JimK

On Dec 13, 9:03 pm, cynic wrote:
On 13 Dec, 14:19, JimK wrote:



On Dec 13, 12:44 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:11:24 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:
At a rough estimate there are about 20 vehicle movements per day: 10 in
and 10 out. Mainly intellectually challenged folk who ignore the *no
through road* sign in obedience to their navigator instructions.

Reduce the traffic, fit a gate as this is a bridleway make sure it
can be opened/closed from horse back.

--
Cheers
Dave.

may be worth Tim trying a gate but IMHO militant nag hackers tend to
not close it after themselves.....

isn't there also some requirement for there to have been a gate there
before?? or evidence such as hinges on posts/stone gate posts etc?

JimK

Not all riders are militant but most do object to reduction in their
rights (who on this earth doesn't)
Simply putting up a gate is not allowed but if you contact your local
BHS Access Officer to discuss the matter you may find you have some
useful suggestions and helpful advice. You don't say where you are but
google for the BHS head office at Stoneleigh and follow the links.
The unannounced arrival of a gate across a bridleway is almost
guaranteed to start an expensive fight whereas proper consultation and
a willingness to take advice can easily oil the wheels. You may also
like to contact your local county councils rights of way department.
Generally if a gate is operable from horseback it can be arranged to
fall gently shut which solves the closure problem

there you go Tim!

(although I can't say I am overly enthusiastic about actively inviting
the representatives of usually vociferous objectors/moaners to view
my plans in advance.....)

JimK

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:22:51 -0800 (PST), JimK wrote:

No. If it were just a bridleway by definition I wouldn't be legally
allowed to access my property by vehicle would I ?

It's your land, your track, you can drive along it. The general
public can't though. Anyway I see you say it's a BOAT so anyone can
drive it.

The fact that some one else has blocked it with locked gates will be
*very* interesting to the local rights of way officer. Having said
that there have been lots of chnages to the rules so the BOAT might
not still be open as such.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message
, JimK
writes

Hmm.. sounds like a bridleway.

No. If it were just a bridleway by definition I wouldn't be legally
allowed to access my property by vehicle would I ?

If you own the land you can decide to permit higher rights than those
enjoyed by the general public. Notably granting yourself permission to
take a vehicle along it:-)

Presumably you also grant permission to service vehicles, post etc. The
test of status is whether the rest of us have a right to drive along it.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:22:51 -0800 (PST), JimK wrote:

No. If it were just a bridleway by definition I wouldn't be legally
allowed to access my property by vehicle would I ?

It's your land, your track, you can drive along it. The general
public can't though. Anyway I see you say it's a BOAT so anyone can
drive it.

Attribution issues:-) JimK = bridleway with private access rights.

Mine is the BOAT and yes, the Highways man is getting stressed by GLASS

The fact that some one else has blocked it with locked gates will be
*very* interesting to the local rights of way officer. Having said
that there have been lots of chnages to the rules so the BOAT might
not still be open as such.

TROs etc.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Dec 13, 10:31 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
, JimK
writes



Hmm.. sounds like a bridleway.

No. If it were just a bridleway by definition I wouldn't be legally
allowed to access my property by vehicle would I ?

If you own the land you can decide to permit higher rights than those
enjoyed by the general public. Notably granting yourself permission to
take a vehicle along it:-)

Erm are you saying I have to grant myself rights over my own
property!? ********!

Surely as landowner I reserve *all* rights.

Presumably you also grant permission to service vehicles, post etc. The
test of status is whether the rest of us have a right to drive along it.

Which you don't because it's a Bridleway as per Definitive Map.

Where's this stuff coming from? any links to backup your point of
view?

cheers
JimK

On Dec 13, 10:27 pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:22:51 -0800 (PST), JimK wrote:
No. If it were just a bridleway by definition I wouldn't be legally
allowed to access my property by vehicle would I ?

It's your land, your track, you can drive along it. The general
public can't though. Anyway I see you say it's a BOAT so anyone can
drive it.

The fact that some one else has blocked it with locked gates will be
*very* interesting to the local rights of way officer. Having said
that there have been lots of chnages to the rules so the BOAT might
not still be open as such.

--
Cheers
Dave.

there's now 2 tracks in this thread Dave, mine's not a BOAT for e.g.

Cheers
JimK

JimK gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

No. If it were just a bridleway by definition I wouldn't be legally
allowed to access my property by vehicle would I ?

If you own the land you can decide to permit higher rights than those
enjoyed by the general public. Notably granting yourself permission to
take a vehicle along it:-)

Erm are you saying I have to grant myself rights over my own property!?
********!

Not at all.

You don't have to follow any formal procedure to grant yourself rights,
just make a little promise not to shout "Git orf moi laaaand!" at
yourself whilst waving a shotgun in the general direction of yourself...

On 14 Dec, 10:33, Adrian wrote:
JimK gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

No. If it were just a bridleway by definition I wouldn't be legally
allowed to access my property by vehicle would I ?
If you own the land you can decide to permit higher rights than those
enjoyed by the general public. Notably granting yourself permission to
take a vehicle along it:-)
Erm are you saying I have to grant myself rights over my own property!?
********!

Not at all.

You don't have to follow any formal procedure to grant yourself rights,
just make a little promise not to shout "Git orf moi laaaand!" at
yourself whilst waving a shotgun in the general direction of yourself...

Go on give us a grid reference so we can see what and where we are
pontificating about :-)

On Dec 14, 2:51 pm, cynic wrote:
On 14 Dec, 10:33, Adrian wrote:



JimK gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

No. If it were just a bridleway by definition I wouldn't be legally
allowed to access my property by vehicle would I ?
If you own the land you can decide to permit higher rights than those
enjoyed by the general public. Notably granting yourself permission to
take a vehicle along it:-)
Erm are you saying I have to grant myself rights over my own property!?
********!

Not at all.

You don't have to follow any formal procedure to grant yourself rights,
just make a little promise not to shout "Git orf moi laaaand!" at
yourself whilst waving a shotgun in the general direction of yourself...

Go on give us a grid reference so we can see what and where we are
pontificating about :-)

I think not thankyou. :))

JimK

JimK wrote:
Next spring I'm going to have to revisit the access track/bridleway
which is deteriorating again despite regular topping up with MOT.

So thinking of casting in situ two 18 inch wide concrete "tank tracks"
for 150m!

Challenges will include:

1 keeping costs down.. mixing own concrete, doing a "section" at a
time.... or sod it and try and do 4m3 runs at once with small ready
mix trucks?

2 Keeping access open (incl vehicles) during concrete cure stages:-
Road forms or equivalent pegged for sides and a (possibly bolted down)
steel plate top for wheeled traffic whilst initial curing takes place
- how thick a plate? thinner is cheaper and easier, but at what
thinness will it bend/buckle and backfire??

3 Shaping the concrete to avoid sharp corner edges (horses etc) -
perhaps some sort of curved top (in section) road forms, or similar or
fabricate something to do the job... or will I be able to simply knock
the sharp edges off with a big hammer after a few days curing when
"mould" removed?

4 Do i need reinforcement? plan on 4inch average concrete depth for
cars, tranny vans, small oil tankers.

5 Any way I could easily replicate (or just give a passing impression
of) stone flags as I cast it? (other parts of the track have these
still in situ - it would be "nice" to give a nod to the vernacular..)

what does the group think? do-able? what've I
forgotten/underestimated/ failed to appreciate etc--- you get the
picture - Help!!

Cheers
JimK

You could dig out one track the full length of the pathway (assuming you
are using a digger?) in the AM, get 7.5m3 of readymixed poured in the
afternoon and cast the whole track in one pour, preferably at dusk (is it
used at night at all?) it'll be cured enough to drive over within 24 hours.
If the path belongs to you, you can close it off completely, but this means
the postman, milkman etc would have to leave your deliveries somewhere else

--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008