http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?

On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 03-Aug-16 9:49 AM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Loads of guys standing underneath! I'm not sure I would.

GB wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 9:49 AM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Loads of guys standing underneath! I'm not sure I would.


When is the other side going to do the same thing?

On 03/08/16 10:46, F Murtz wrote:
GB wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 9:49 AM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Loads of guys standing underneath! I'm not sure I would.


When is the other side going to do the same thing?

This year
Next year
Sometime
Never.

Impossible to say. Obviously the abutments had crumbled. Tree roots?
Wrong sort of soil? Not enough tree roots?


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 03-Aug-16 10:00 AM, GB wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 9:49 AM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Loads of guys standing underneath! I'm not sure I would.



They've got hard hats on :-)

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 03/08/16 10:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/08/16 10:46, F Murtz wrote:
GB wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 9:49 AM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Loads of guys standing underneath! I'm not sure I would.


When is the other side going to do the same thing?

This year
Next year
Sometime
Never.

Impossible to say. Obviously the abutments had crumbled. Tree roots?
Wrong sort of soil? Not enough tree roots?



Remember that the Hastings Line embankments and cuttings in the
Stonegate and Mountfield areas had been happy for nearly 150 years -
then a few years ago they did this:

http://news.images.itv.com/image/fil...update_img.jpg
(Stonegate, into being fixed, and repeat same story in several locations)

NR reckoned that whilst there was nothing exactly wrong with how the
Victorians built them, they'd used any old spoil from other cuttings
whereas now we'd be a bit more careful with the type of material used.

One year of very high rainfall was the last straw.

On 03-Aug-16 12:52 PM, Tim Watts wrote:

Remember that the Hastings Line embankments and cuttings in the
Stonegate and Mountfield areas had been happy for nearly 150 years -
then a few years ago they did this:

http://news.images.itv.com/image/fil...update_img.jpg
(Stonegate, into being fixed, and repeat same story in several locations)


That's quite a good reason for not having driverless trains.

On 03-Aug-16 10:56 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/08/16 10:46, F Murtz wrote:
GB wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 9:49 AM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Loads of guys standing underneath! I'm not sure I would.


When is the other side going to do the same thing?

This year
Next year
Sometime
Never.

As the collapse has probably reduced the pressure on the opposite side,
I would say no time soon. However, as the opposite side of that arch
appears to be the only bit of the bridge that does not have recessed
brick decoration and it looks to be a different colour of brick, the
answer might be some time ago. It seems to have been rebuilt at some
time, probably that was also when the ties were put into the arch rings.

Impossible to say. Obviously the abutments had crumbled. Tree roots?
Wrong sort of soil? Not enough tree roots?

We are told that the area is liable to subsidence.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 09:49:15 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Looks like soil has been incorporated into the structure.
Normally it would be filled with masonry.

On 03-Aug-16 6:31 PM, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 09:49:15 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Looks like soil has been incorporated into the structure.
Normally it would be filled with masonry.


It is quite usual for a Victorian bridge to contain soil. It probably
came from the railway cutting. Today, the most likely options would be
foamed concrete or a well-drained granular fill. The latter allows for
greater movement, so would be more suitable for an area liable to
subsidence.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 03-Aug-16 7:42 PM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 6:31 PM, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 09:49:15 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Looks like soil has been incorporated into the structure.
Normally it would be filled with masonry.


It is quite usual for a Victorian bridge to contain soil. It probably
came from the railway cutting. Today, the most likely options would be
foamed concrete or a well-drained granular fill. The latter allows for
greater movement, so would be more suitable for an area liable to
subsidence.


How interesting. My initial idea was that foamed concrete would hold
everything together nicely, but I can see that you might want a bit of
flexibility.

In message , at 21:41:32 on Wed, 3 Aug 2016,
GB remarked:
It is quite usual for a Victorian bridge to contain soil. It probably
came from the railway cutting. Today, the most likely options would be
foamed concrete or a well-drained granular fill. The latter allows for
greater movement, so would be more suitable for an area liable to
subsidence.

How interesting. My initial idea was that foamed concrete would hold
everything together nicely, but I can see that you might want a bit of
flexibility.

Concrete has no strength in tension (hence the concept of reinforced
concrete), but it would stop things moving around if that was using
strength in compression.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:18:33
on Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Nightjar remarked:

As the collapse has probably reduced the pressure on the opposite side,
I would say no time soon. However, as the opposite side of that arch
appears to be the only bit of the bridge that does not have recessed
brick decoration and it looks to be a different colour of brick, the
answer might be some time ago. It seems to have been rebuilt at some
time, probably that was also when the ties were put into the arch rings.

It might have been due to doubling the track there from two to four
lines.
--
Roland Perry

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:47:08 PM UTC+5, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?

www.dgheating.org.uk

"Domestic & General heating" Wrote

www.dgheating.org.uk


Spamming ****s.

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 04/08/16 10:03, Domestic & General heating wrote:
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:47:08 PM UTC+5, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?

www.dgheating.org.uk

**** off spamming ****


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 04-Aug-16 9:57 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:18:33
on Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Nightjar remarked:

As the collapse has probably reduced the pressure on the opposite
side, I would say no time soon. However, as the opposite side of that
arch appears to be the only bit of the bridge that does not have
recessed brick decoration and it looks to be a different colour of
brick, the answer might be some time ago. It seems to have been
rebuilt at some time, probably that was also when the ties were put
into the arch rings.

It might have been due to doubling the track there from two to four lines.

That was my first thought, but, if you look carefully at the remains of
the collapsed wall, at the top, near the centre, you can see the same
recessed decoration as on the other arch. That suggests that the plain
side is a later rebuild, rather than due to an extension of the bridge.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 03-Aug-16 9:41 PM, GB wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 7:42 PM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 6:31 PM, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 09:49:15 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Looks like soil has been incorporated into the structure.
Normally it would be filled with masonry.


It is quite usual for a Victorian bridge to contain soil. It probably
came from the railway cutting. Today, the most likely options would be
foamed concrete or a well-drained granular fill. The latter allows for
greater movement, so would be more suitable for an area liable to
subsidence.


How interesting. My initial idea was that foamed concrete would hold
everything together nicely, but I can see that you might want a bit of
flexibility.

You might find this document of interest. It deals with how brick arch
bridges are built today:

http://www.mbhplc.co.uk/bda/Structure-Arch-Bridges.pdf

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Thursday, 4 August 2016 10:04:42 UTC+1, Domestic & General heating wrote:
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:47:08 PM UTC+5, DerbyBorn wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?

www.dgheating.org.uk

It's a truly hopeless company that suggests heating as a solution to bridge collapse. Thank you to all spammers for letting us know who to avoid.


NT

On 8/4/2016 10:31 AM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 9:41 PM, GB wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 7:42 PM, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 6:31 PM, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 09:49:15 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.


Looks like soil has been incorporated into the structure.
Normally it would be filled with masonry.


It is quite usual for a Victorian bridge to contain soil. It probably
came from the railway cutting. Today, the most likely options would be
foamed concrete or a well-drained granular fill. The latter allows for
greater movement, so would be more suitable for an area liable to
subsidence.


How interesting. My initial idea was that foamed concrete would hold
everything together nicely, but I can see that you might want a bit of
flexibility.

You might find this document of interest. It deals with how brick arch
bridges are built today:

http://www.mbhplc.co.uk/bda/Structure-Arch-Bridges.pdf

Nice link. I was in a Victorian brewery cellar the other day, with a
stone arched roof which feels just about as flat as Maidenhead. Next
time I am there I will measure the span to height ratio.

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 10:12:54 AM UTC+1, jim wrote:
"Domestic & General heating" Wrote

www.dgheating.org.uk


Spamming ****s.

Clever though but I have never understood why anyone would use the services of a spammer in anything but a criminal endeavour. I'd report it to Google but all they do is put a cookie on my computer so that I don't see it. I want their anihilation not a curtain that my computer has to hold.

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 9:49:15 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.

"Our teams have been working on site since the early hours to make the bridge area safe and restore train services following the partial collapse," he added.

"A full investigation will take place into the cause of the collapse, but our priority is to return rail services as soon as possible."

So as long as they can make a profit while they discuss the engineering, things can go back to normal?

In article ,
Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 9:49:15 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.

"Our teams have been working on site since the early hours to make the
bridge area safe and restore train services following the partial
collapse," he added.

"A full investigation will take place into the cause of the collapse, but
our priority is to return rail services as soon as possible."

So as long as they can make a profit while they discuss the engineering,
things can go back to normal?

Or "let's keep our cutomers happy"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 06-Aug-16 5:52 AM, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 9:49:15 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.

"Our teams have been working on site since the early hours to make the bridge area safe and restore train services following the partial collapse," he added.

"A full investigation will take place into the cause of the collapse, but our priority is to return rail services as soon as possible."

So as long as they can make a profit while they discuss the engineering, things can go back to normal?


The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the rail
companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty to the
rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 06/08/16 09:07, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-16 5:52 AM, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 9:49:15 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Aug-16 8:47 AM, DerbyBorn wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36950451

surprised that only the brick facing walls are holding in the outward
forces resulting from the load on the roadway. Why not tie bars and
spreader plates to stop the walls being pushed outwards?


There are an estimated 60-70,000 masonry and brick arch bridges in the
UK, most being more than a century old. They generally survive quite
well without any need to tie the spandrel walls together. The presence
of ties in the blue brick arch rings suggests that this is one of the
exceptions and has had problems in the past; it is mentioned in the
article that the area is liable to subsidence.

"Our teams have been working on site since the early hours to make the
bridge area safe and restore train services following the partial
collapse," he added.

"A full investigation will take place into the cause of the collapse,
but our priority is to return rail services as soon as possible."

So as long as they can make a profit while they discuss the
engineering, things can go back to normal?


The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the rail
companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty to the
rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.


A friend of mine who work's in that industry once muttered 'if all the
money they want to spend on HS2 were spend on getting rid of level
crossing, fixing bridges that are falling down, and relaying existing
track where needed, more passengers would get where they are going with
far less disruption....


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

In message , at 09:07:00
on Sat, 6 Aug 2016, Nightjar remarked:
"A full investigation will take place into the cause of the collapse, but our priority is to return rail services as soon as possible."

So as long as they can make a profit while they discuss the engineering, things can go back to normal?


The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the
rail companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty to
the rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.

They will be paying compensation to the train operators (who in turn may
be passing part of that on to passengers).
--
Roland Perry

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 9:25:35 AM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:07:00
on Sat, 6 Aug 2016, Nightjar remarked:
"A full investigation will take place into the cause of the collapse, but our priority is to return rail services as soon as possible."

So as long as they can make a profit while they discuss the engineering, things can go back to normal?


The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the
rail companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty to
the rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.

They will be paying compensation to the train operators (who in turn may
be passing part of that on to passengers).
--
Roland Perry

I heard that when the large companies owned pre-nationalised it was well run on a profitable or else basis and that after it was run to death in WW2 the amount of reparations required was too much for the newly elected socialist government to accept.

Whatever the case the sale to speculators by Thatcher seems to have been ill thought out judging by the findings of numerous enquiries after the crashes and disasters.

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the rail
companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty to the
rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.

Are all bridges over railways the responsibility of Network Rail - rather
than of the appropriate highway etc authority?

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the
rail companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty
to the rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.

Are all bridges over railways the responsibility of Network Rail - rather
than of the appropriate highway etc authority?

If the road was there before the railway, yes. Motorway bridges probably
not.
We have a road in our village which crosses the railway line (opened 1885).
The approaches to the bridge were in danger of collapsing 3 years ago and
the whole lot (not the bridge itself) were rebuilt. The Highways Authority
(Surrey CC) did the work, but the bill was paid by Newtwork Rail.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 06-Aug-16 11:35 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the rail
companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty to the
rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.

Are all bridges over railways the responsibility of Network Rail - rather
than of the appropriate highway etc authority?


The general rule, which can be changed by agreement, is that whoever
builds a bridge over or under a railway or watercourse or other road (or
their successors) is responsible for maintaining it. In this case, the
bridge was almost certainly built by the railway, when they made the
cutting.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 06/08/2016 17:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-16 11:35 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the rail
companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty to the
rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.

Are all bridges over railways the responsibility of Network Rail - rather
than of the appropriate highway etc authority?


The general rule, which can be changed by agreement, is that whoever
builds a bridge over or under a railway or watercourse or other road (or
their successors) is responsible for maintaining it. In this case, the
bridge was almost certainly built by the railway, when they made the
cutting.

Interesting. I believed that railways would build the bridge over a new
road and charge it to the local authority. The LA having no right to
build bridges over rail lines.

I an thinking of an example some 20 years ago, where the LA enforced the
building of a bridge through the courts as the railway co was dragging
their feet.

Has that changed since?

Maintenance of a bridge shouldn't be expected for 100 years or so, so
would fall on the body responsible for building it. A LA's notional
timescale of action, tendering etc, would be very different from a rail
company's.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 06/08/2016 17:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-16 11:35 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the
rail companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty
to the rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.

Are all bridges over railways the responsibility of Network Rail -
rather than of the appropriate highway etc authority?


The general rule, which can be changed by agreement, is that whoever
builds a bridge over or under a railway or watercourse or other road (or
their successors) is responsible for maintaining it. In this case, the
bridge was almost certainly built by the railway, when they made the
cutting.

Interesting. I believed that railways would build the bridge over a new
road and charge it to the local authority. The LA having no right to
build bridges over rail lines.

I an thinking of an example some 20 years ago, where the LA enforced the
building of a bridge through the courts as the railway co was dragging
their feet.

Has that changed since?

Maintenance of a bridge shouldn't be expected for 100 years or so, so
would fall on the body responsible for building it. A LA's notional
timescale of action, tendering etc, would be very different from a rail
company's.


how does "never" compare with "never"?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 06/08/2016 18:12, charles wrote:

snip passage that doesn't include the word "never"

how does "never" compare with "never"?

I'm sure you're able to enlighten us.

On 06-Aug-16 5:44 PM, Fredxxx wrote:
On 06/08/2016 17:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-16 11:35 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
The bridge is the responsibility of Network Rail, not of any of the
rail
companies running the services. I presume that they have a duty to the
rail companies to minimise disruption where possible.

Are all bridges over railways the responsibility of Network Rail -
rather
than of the appropriate highway etc authority?


The general rule, which can be changed by agreement, is that whoever
builds a bridge over or under a railway or watercourse or other road (or
their successors) is responsible for maintaining it. In this case, the
bridge was almost certainly built by the railway, when they made the
cutting.

Interesting. I believed that railways would build the bridge over a new
road and charge it to the local authority. The LA having no right to
build bridges over rail lines.

I an thinking of an example some 20 years ago, where the LA enforced the
building of a bridge through the courts as the railway co was dragging
their feet.

Has that changed since?

I am only giving the general case, which applies in the absence of any
specific agreement. While it would also be the guiding principle for any
new construction, as I said, it can be varied by agreement between the
authorities concerned.

Maintenance of a bridge shouldn't be expected for 100 years or so,...

There have been some significant exceptions - box girder bridges built
in the 1960s needed major work within a fairly short time and a lot of
structures built around the same time using high alumina cement
crumbled, due to improper use of the material. With road bridges there
is also the potential problem of impact damage.

so
would fall on the body responsible for building it. A LA's notional
timescale of action, tendering etc, would be very different from a rail
company's.

For infrastructure, I would have thought they would be broadly similar.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 02:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
wrote:

On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 9:25:35 AM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:07:00
on Sat, 6 Aug 2016, Nightjar remarked:
"A full investigation will take place into the cause of the collapse, but our priority is to return rail services as soon as possible."

So as long as they can make a profit while they discuss the engineering, things can go back to normal?

I heard that when the large companies owned pre-nationalised it was well run on a profitable or else basis and that after it was run to death in WW2 the amount of reparations required was too much for the newly elected socialist government to accept.

Out of the four companies that operated most of the railway network
the two whose business was mainly North of London and up to Scotland
were hardly profitable. The LMS and LNER whose traffic came from the
industrial Midlands and North had been greatly affected by the
depression of the 30's and never recovered. The LMS had made a small
return on investment but a lot of it came from other sources such as
ferries and hotels and for what was one of the largest companies in
the world at the time it was a poor one. The LNER never made a profit
in its existence, the Mallard and Flying Scotsman giving an illusion
that it was a prosperous operation when the bread and butter was
coming from the declining carriage of coal .
The managements did not do too much to oppose nationisation as it gave
them a solution out of a sticky spot, the two companies serving the
more prosperous South and West the Southern and GWR were in a better
position but it was only the GWR that made serious noises about
opposing state ownership and were already looking to the future by
trying out a couple of Gas Turbine Locos.

G.Harman

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
Maintenance of a bridge shouldn't be expected for 100 years or so,...

There have been some significant exceptions - box girder bridges built
in the 1960s needed major work within a fairly short time and a lot of
structures built around the same time using high alumina cement
crumbled, due to improper use of the material. With road bridges there
is also the potential problem of impact damage.

And, of course, the Forth Road Bridge. Went on a school trip to see it
being built.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
Out of the four companies that operated most of the railway network
the two whose business was mainly North of London and up to Scotland
were hardly profitable. The LMS and LNER whose traffic came from the
industrial Midlands and North had been greatly affected by the
depression of the 30's and never recovered. The LMS had made a small
return on investment but a lot of it came from other sources such as
ferries and hotels and for what was one of the largest companies in
the world at the time it was a poor one. The LNER never made a profit
in its existence, the Mallard and Flying Scotsman giving an illusion
that it was a prosperous operation when the bread and butter was
coming from the declining carriage of coal .
The managements did not do too much to oppose nationisation as it gave
them a solution out of a sticky spot, the two companies serving the
more prosperous South and West the Southern and GWR were in a better
position but it was only the GWR that made serious noises about
opposing state ownership and were already looking to the future by
trying out a couple of Gas Turbine Locos.

It's one of those myths so beloved of the right wing that the railways
were profitable and ran perfectly just before nationalization. When in
fact there were plenty of smaller lines that never made a profit from the
day they were built. And then add in the lack of investment and damage in
the war years.

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
Maintenance of a bridge shouldn't be expected for 100 years or so,...

There have been some significant exceptions - box girder bridges built
in the 1960s needed major work within a fairly short time and a lot of
structures built around the same time using high alumina cement
crumbled, due to improper use of the material. With road bridges there
is also the potential problem of impact damage.

And, of course, the Forth Road Bridge. Went on a school trip to see it
being built.

Salt water doesn't nasty things to steel and iron. That is why the original
Forth Bridge (rail) was continually being repainted.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
Maintenance of a bridge shouldn't be expected for 100 years or
so,...

There have been some significant exceptions - box girder bridges
built in the 1960s needed major work within a fairly short time and
a lot of structures built around the same time using high alumina
cement crumbled, due to improper use of the material. With road
bridges there is also the potential problem of impact damage.

And, of course, the Forth Road Bridge. Went on a school trip to see it
being built.

Salt water doesn't nasty things to steel and iron. That is why the
original Forth Bridge (rail) was continually being repainted.

It should have read "Salt water does nasty...."

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England