logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error
10 Pages«<678910>
Bridge42 - Grade2 listed bridge across Buxton Road - demolishing
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
tyke  
#141 Posted : 05 May 2011 22:46:54(UTC)
Retweet
tyke
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 18/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 280
Man
United Kingdom
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)

Well said. Common sense here!
furnessvale  
#142 Posted : 13 May 2011 20:33:54(UTC)
Retweet
furnessvale
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 14/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 30

PassingBy wrote:

If freight doesn't run on this line in the near future then I fear the local economy. Quaries produce a load of bulk goods, we all know that. It's either a few trains a day or several hundred tipper lorries clogging up Derbyshires roads? What happens if Tarmac, Lafarge and friends close the quarries because transport costs become too expensive? Local jobs? Suppliers lost? 

Less of the NIMBYism and open your eyes to the benefits!!! 

 

A recent example springs to mind.

A large north west glass manufacturer used to source its sand from a Staffordshire quarry with deliveries by road.  The company expressed a desire to use rail.  Enquiries received a hostile reception from the local authority at the quarry end.  The obliging quarry company owns another quarry in Norfolk which already dispatches by rail so, quick as a flash, the work was transferred to Norfolk, certainly with the loss of all Staffordshire road haulage jobs, some of which would have been kept in shuttling sand to the railhead,  and no doubt several quarry jobs as well.

Just to rub salt in local NIMBY wounds, you can see the sand trains three times a week passing through Chinley, Buxworth and New Mills en route from Norfolk to Merseyside!

Furnessvale George
furnessvale  
#143 Posted : 11 October 2011 14:21:06(UTC)
Retweet
furnessvale
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 14/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 30

This topic has been dormant for several months.  Has anyone heard of any developments on the planning process?

George

 
NevClarke  
#144 Posted : 11 October 2011 16:37:28(UTC)
Retweet
NevClarke
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 11/04/2011(UTC)
Posts: 140
Man
United Kingdom
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
As I understand it Network Rail are appealing the decision not to grant them a demolition order. They were out surveying it a couple of Sundays ago. They were probably pulling bolts out.

“It all sounds like the sort of scheme Elmer Fudd might dream up while drunk.”

Nev Clarke
clarkenev@gmail.com
WWW Twitter
JonG  
#145 Posted : 11 October 2011 17:43:37(UTC)
Retweet
JonG
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Administration, Member
Joined: 08/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 352
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 13 post(s)

Hi,

They have placed sensors underneath the arches where they join, presumably to monitor movement.

I have not heard the results of the written appeal yet.

See http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp  for details.

The appeal reference is APP/H1033/E/11/2153685

Cheers

Jon.

 

Jon Goldfinch - Forum Administrator and Town Councillor
Whaley Bridge Town Council - Fernilee Ward
cllr.jong.wbtc@googlemail.com
R. Stephenson-Smythe  
#146 Posted : 08 December 2011 15:01:49(UTC)
Retweet
R. Stephenson-Smythe
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)

 

From the outset here can I make it clear that I am only asking certain questions that may or may not be answered?
 
The topic seems to have gone quiet for a while now anyway.
 
So as I understand it Network Rail, or whoever the owners happen to be this week, want to replace the bridge so that freight can travel over it at 50 mph. But I am informed that there is a speed restriction of 25 mph for the whole of that line anyway.
The speed limit over Bridge 42 is 10 mph and the speed limit for the level crossing at Furness is 20 mph.
These are figures that have been given to me and although I do not doubt them I have no written evidence to support them. So please bear that in mind.
 
Now here is a question for the mathematicians out there:
 
If the freight train is say 100 metres long and is travelling from Chapel towards Bridge 42 at its maximum 25 mph and it has to slow gown to 10 mph during the crossing and then it increases speed again to 25 mph but then has to slow down to 20 mph to go over the level crossing; then how much time is ‘lost’ because of these speed changes between say the Chapel Road A6 Bridge and Furness level crossing?
 
I will send some photos of derailed freight trains, all carrying limestone, on that stretch of line to Jon Goldfinch and he can decide whether or not to put them on the forum.
One of the derailments is on a bridge over a busy road but not Bridge 42.
None of the trains were travelling at or near 50 mph.
 
R. S-S
High Peak Harry  
#147 Posted : 08 December 2011 17:32:31(UTC)
Retweet
High Peak Harry
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 30/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 329
Location: High Peak
This is what happens when freight trains have accidents at not too fast a speed. This will have been going reasonably slow as it had just crossed the points at New Mills South junction.

Scroll down to 1980

http://www.derbysulzers.com/5274.html
WWW
furnessvale  
#148 Posted : 09 December 2011 11:28:01(UTC)
Retweet
furnessvale
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 14/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 30

R. Stephenson-Smythe wrote:

 

From the outset here can I make it clear that I am only asking certain questions that may or may not be answered?
 
The topic seems to have gone quiet for a while now anyway.
 
So as I understand it Network Rail, or whoever the owners happen to be this week, want to replace the bridge so that freight can travel over it at 50 mph. But I am informed that there is a speed restriction of 25 mph for the whole of that line anyway.
The speed limit over Bridge 42 is 10 mph and the speed limit for the level crossing at Furness is 20 mph.
These are figures that have been given to me and although I do not doubt them I have no written evidence to support them. So please bear that in mind.
 
Now here is a question for the mathematicians out there:
 
If the freight train is say 100 metres long and is travelling from Chapel towards Bridge 42 at its maximum 25 mph and it has to slow gown to 10 mph during the crossing and then it increases speed again to 25 mph but then has to slow down to 20 mph to go over the level crossing; then how much time is ‘lost’ because of these speed changes between say the Chapel Road A6 Bridge and Furness level crossing?
 
I will send some photos of derailed freight trains, all carrying limestone, on that stretch of line to Jon Goldfinch and he can decide whether or not to put them on the forum.
One of the derailments is on a bridge over a busy road but not Bridge 42.
None of the trains were travelling at or near 50 mph.
 
R. S-S

I don't know if there is a blanket 25mph speed limit on the whole line.  If there is it only applies to freight as passengers certainly exceed that.  If the line was fettled for more freight I am sure any freight only restriction would be lifted or raised.

The 10mph over bridge 42 is to reduce stresses on an already weak bridge.  If the bridge was rebuilt I am sure the limit would be raised or changed to line speed.

Any through trains at Furness Vale pass at more than 20mph, provided the signalman is quick enough clearing the signals, so I do not know about a 20mph restriction.

In the end, rebuilding Br42 is all about replacing an understrength bridge on an important diversionary route for Peak District stone.  If the stone cannot go by rail it will go by road and we all know how safe that method of transport is!   Perhaps R. S-S would care to see a few photos of stone lorries buried in the front of peoples homes along the A6 to even the balance of the discussion?

George
R. Stephenson-Smythe  
#149 Posted : 09 December 2011 14:23:17(UTC)
Retweet
R. Stephenson-Smythe
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)

 

Hello George,
 
You will be surprised to know that I am in favour of stone being transported by rail. It makes absolute sense.
I am just posing a few questions that will probably be raised at the Public Enquiry unless Network Rail somehow manages to sidestep it.
 
Of course, owners of listed structures are obliged to maintain those structures to a safe and satisfactory condition. The fact that Network Rail, or whoever, are saying that Bridge 42 is not safe then the Planners should have served notice on them to make sure that it was.
 
The speed limits I mentioned did refer to freight trains as that is what we are discussing.
 
When I posed the mathematical poser I did not really expect to see a response so here is a basic one from me that may be totally wrong but I’ll have a go and err on the side of caution with my figures:
 
If it is 6 miles from Chapel to Furness (it may be more or less but I think it is a safe starting point) and let us say the freight train travels those 6 miles at 24 mph (we wouldn’t want it to exceed the speed limit) then the journey would take 15 minutes.
Now if we take the same journey but allowing for slowing down and crossing Bridge 42 at 10 mph we might say that the journey would have an average speed of only half the previous time i.e. 12 mph.
The 6 miles would now take twice as long to complete; that is 30 minutes.
 
So we seem to be talking about at most 15 minutes bearing in mind the current speed limits.
 
I don’t have any idea how much 15 minutes means in terms of financial costs for Network Rail and whether it is justification for removing a listed building that they have obviously neglected.
 
As I say I am basically in favour of stone being transported by rail but I just think some questions need to be answered before an application from a major company is simply rubber stamped.
 
I would also quote the figures supplied to us by Cllr Jon Goldfinch on 13th October 2008 on the old forum:
 
From the Birse report:
"5.3.2 Increase in Rail speed and freight. Reconstruction options can be developed to accommodate an increase to meet the current aspirational rail speed. In addition reconstruction options can be designed to allow for future increases in rail speeds and services on the line. This will provide benefit in reducing journey times and allowing the realistic use of the line again for freight movements"
From the second Birse supporting document-R2200-P7198-lbc
"Growth at the quarries at Dowlow, Tunstead and Peak Forest has increased in recent years, which has resulted in congestion on the Hope Valley rail route (part of the MAS line). To relieve the freight frequency on this line, the only alternative is to use the BEJ route(i.e. whaley bridge line-jg). This would have the effect of increasing the rail freight traffic on the BEJ line from the current volume of less than 1 million tonnes per annum up to 18-25 million tonnes per annum."
 
So if 25 million tons of hardcore are to be moved on this line perhaps 15 minutes per train will add up to quite a bit.
 
As I say my figures, apart from the above in blue, are not part of any documentation so you need to judge for yourselves whether I am in the right ball park or not
 
R. S-S
furnessvale  
#150 Posted : 11 December 2011 11:50:16(UTC)
Retweet
furnessvale
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 14/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 30

R. Stephenson-Smythe wrote:

 

I don’t have any idea how much 15 minutes means in terms of financial costs for Network Rail and whether it is justification for removing a listed building that they have obviously neglected.
 
From the second Birse supporting document-R2200-P7198-lbc
"Growth at the quarries at Dowlow, Tunstead and Peak Forest has increased in recent years, which has resulted in congestion on the Hope Valley rail route (part of the MAS line). To relieve the freight frequency on this line, the only alternative is to use the BEJ route(i.e. whaley bridge line-jg). This would have the effect of increasing the rail freight traffic on the BEJ line from the current volume of less than 1 million tonnes per annum up to 18-25 million tonnes per annum."
 
So if 25 million tons of hardcore are to be moved on this line perhaps 15 minutes per train will add up to quite a bit.
 
 
R. S-S

I don't think time is the major factor in Network rail's application.  However, if many more freights used this line then speed restrictions could result in less available paths and the passenger service could suffer.

It is unfair to say this bridge has been neglected.  It is built out of cast iron which is notorious for sudden and catastrophic failure.  Freight trains are bigger and heavier than of old and it is reasonable to take precautions.

I don't know where the Birse figures came from but they imply a tripling of the output of ALL the Peak District quarries, that ALL that output should move by rail(rather than 50% as at present) and that ALL that output should come down the BEJ rather than Hope Valley(in both directions) as at present.  In other words, they are out by a factor of 5-10.  Someone has put a decimal point in the wrong place!

George  
R. Stephenson-Smythe  
#151 Posted : 11 December 2011 13:32:10(UTC)
Retweet
R. Stephenson-Smythe
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)

 

Hello George,
 
As I said I can not vouch for the figures relating to journey times but I don’t think it is far out.
 
I copied and pasted the Birse information, given by Cllr Jon, from the last forum. If either Birse or Jon has made a typing error I would not know but I am sure Jon will respond when he reads this.
 
I must say that the figures did sound as remarkable to me then as they seem to be to you now.
 
But if we do move the decimal point forward so that it is 2.5 million tons per annum we are left with the following:
 
Assuming that the trains are a thousand tons there or thereabouts, which I am told they are, and we assume a working year of 340 days then we have 2,500loads/340 = 7.35 loads per day.
 
Using my rough calc of 15 minutes extra travelling time that is just short of 2 hours per day in lost time and I doubt very much if the railway could stand a near two hour delay each day.
 
In addition, as you say, the higher Birse/Goldfinch figure would mean 73 loads per day. That can not be correct, can it? Surely it is not possible as you say, George.
Even if we use the higher speed limit of 24 mph right through the trains would be running over 18 hours per day.
 
But none of the above might matter anyway:
 
Buggyite seems to me to have a solution to the ‘problem’ of Bridge 42 whereby the speed limit can be increased but the listed structure can be saved by being slightly moderated.
In the short term this may have some absorbable additional costs to Network Rail but they have saved a bob or two during the years of their neglect. When was the last time you saw anyone there with even a paintbrush? Yes I know a lick of paint doesn’t stop metal failure but it does protect it from the elements and is a vast improvement to the street scene.
 
So it’s over to you Buggyite; if you would be so kind, please.
 
R. S-S
 
JonG  
#152 Posted : 11 December 2011 23:13:18(UTC)
Retweet
JonG
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Administration, Member
Joined: 08/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 352
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 13 post(s)

Hi,

The 15-25 Million tonnes per annum is stated clearly in the Birse report :

R2200-P7F98-LBC-02

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=106284

Note that the above report is in the first planning application, which was subsequently withdrawn.

In the second planning application, at http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=121959 , Network Rail remain very quiet about exactly how much freight will run. In fact they remain rather quiet about a lot of things. English Heritage state that the Grade 2 listed bridge should not be demolished unless there is a very good case to do so. HPBC agreed.  The application went to planning committee and was rejected. Network Rail then made a written appeal,as they can, and the outcome should be known in due course.

It would be interesting to know exactly how many limestone lorries currently run down through Furness Vale, but that information does not seem to be available either. Network Rail were asked to answer a number of simple questions in order to make the case for demolishing the Bridge and they did not, or could not, do so.

Sadly, I suspect the outcome will be that the Bridge eventually goes and will be replaced by something which satisfies a Network Rails minimum budget criteria. Furnessvale will probably not notice any difference in traffic, Network Rail will enjoy increased income, and Whaley Bridge residents will have to isten to freight trains running through the centre of town at night. Whaley Bridge will lose a historic Grade 2 listed bridge of which there are only a handful left across the country, and our town will simply lose another bit of its historic character. Network Rail should be keeping the bridge in full repair, and they have not done so for years. It looks awful at the moment only because of this, and could look far better.

I have no wish to stand in the way of progress, but I dont  really see this as progress. If it is replaced, I would like the town to have at least some input into the visual design of the structure that replaces it, and some symapthy from the Network Rail planners towards the design of a bridge in the heart of the town and its conservation area. 

I do also feel that the safety aspect is very much over egged by the reports in order to push the demolition through, and that Network rails own inflexible design criteria leverages this further.

Anyway, the appeal process is complete, and the outcome will be known in due course.

Cheers

Jon.

Jon Goldfinch - Forum Administrator and Town Councillor
Whaley Bridge Town Council - Fernilee Ward
cllr.jong.wbtc@googlemail.com
furnessvale  
#153 Posted : 12 December 2011 17:54:24(UTC)
Retweet
furnessvale
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 14/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 30

JonG wrote:

Hi,

The 15-25 Million tonnes per annum is stated clearly in the Birse report :

I do also feel that the safety aspect is very much over egged by the reports in order to push the demolition through, and that Network rails own inflexible design criteria leverages this further.

Cheers

Jon.

I couldn't just find the tonnage figure in the report but I am happy to accept that it is there.  Equally I am not surprised if Network Rail have gone quiet on the tonnage as 25Million is out by at least a factor of ten.

Having been a railway civil engineer in a past life, I can assure you that there is no over egging in relation to the safety aspect.  I would be most reluctant to sign off a cracked cast iron structure as safe.

Network Rail wanted to rebuild the structure incorporating the existing cast iron beams so that externally it would look no different.  What a pity that Derbyshire County Council vetoed this, so that additional headroom could be obtained on the road, to allow for the passage of the largest HGVs allowed in Europe!

George
High Peak Harry  
#154 Posted : 12 December 2011 19:35:50(UTC)
Retweet
High Peak Harry
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 30/04/2009(UTC)
Posts: 329
Location: High Peak
furnessvale wrote:

Network Rail wanted to rebuild the structure incorporating the existing cast iron beams so that externally it would look no different.  What a pity that Derbyshire County Council vetoed this, so that additional headroom could be obtained on the road, to allow for the passage of the largest HGVs allowed in Europe!

George



That would seem to be a good idea and one I would have suggested so quite why DCC vetoed it God only knows. This is the same council which rebuilt and resurfaced the bridge over the Cromford and High Peak line at Dove Holes. At a cost of £140,000 for a line that has been derelict for 60 years. Actually, if they did that it shouldn't really surprise anyone, should it?
WWW
JonG  
#155 Posted : 12 December 2011 22:13:56(UTC)
Retweet
JonG
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Administration, Member
Joined: 08/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 352
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 13 post(s)

Hi Furnessvale,

It is in section 1.1 of the report I indicated - i.e the second R2200-P7198-lbc document at the link I gave.

I am not sure where you have got the view that DCC vetoed a rebuilding of the structure incorporating the cast iron beams, and that Network Rail wanted it to look no different externally. Even in the original 2008 application by Network Rail, it was Network Rail who were making the decisions on what the bridge should look like. Pleas can you point out where this vetoe is indicated as I cannot remember seeing it.

In fact, having measured the bridge height at the edges myself, I discovered that we only needed to bring the road in by 2 feet on one side and 1 foot on the other. With this width , the clearance above the road would be the 16'6 adopted on motorways, and the road would still be more than adequate for two lane traffic. I was reassured of this by someone at DCC. Let's not also forget that the recently renovated bridge on Chapel Road is only 14'3" clearance, and that is fine for double deckers and HGV's. Personally I dont want the largest HGV's in Europe to be able to drive through the centre of Whaley Bridge !

Bringing in the road slightly (perhaps by building a formal parking bay on one side)and using Option5 in the original planning application, would probably achieve everything required.

 

4.2.2 OPTION 5 - Install Longitudinal Beams Within a New Deck.

An alternative to eliminate the negative aspects of Option 4 above, is to raise the level of the proposed longitudinal beams. This can only be achieved by removing the existing deck that spans between the cast iron arch members.

The existing deck comprises wrought iron cross girders and buckle floor plates, these are covered in a 300mm concrete layer. The concrete is also monolithic with the longitudinal cast iron arch compression flanges and as a result, this option would require extensive works to separate the existing deck from the cast iron arches over their entire length.

In addition to the above strengthening the ‘associated works’ outline in 4.1 (i-p) would also be required to ensure the engineering drivers were met. Figure 9 below provides an illustration of the elevation and section of this option.

Figure 9 – Option 5 Pictorial Representation

Liaison with a specialist contractor has estimated the following preliminary closures required to undertake these works:

•

Full road closure – 7 weeks;

•

　

Full rail closure – 7 days.

Section Through Proposed Deck

Existing Arches

New internal steel beams

(As existing)

New internal deck sections

Envisaged Elevation

New internal steel beams, (possibly 2 per deck)

OPTION 5 - Advantages

(a) The elevations would not be significantly affected;

(b) The strengthening would not reduce the headroom any further than existing;

(c) This option would provide Network Rail with more confidence in the long-term adequacy of the structure with regards to maintenance and design life over Option 3;

(d) The fatigue cycles are to increase significantly, however the stress in the existing elements could be reduced significantly and the effects of fatigue would be reduced compared with Option 3;

(e) The exposure of the hidden cast iron arch joints would be undertaken as a matter of course for the deck removal and they could be inspected using MPI techniques, however of significant benefit over Option 3 above would be the removal of the requirement to strengthening these elements;

(f) The additional girders would provide additional structural redundancy in the cast iron elements in the event of an impact event;

(g) The line restrictions could be lifted to enable the operational and economic drivers to be achieved.

OPTION 5 - Disadvantages

(h) The only remaining structural elements of the existing structure will be the cast iron arches;

(i) It is envisaged that the road and rail closures required will be longer than those for Options 3 or 4;

(j) Disturbance to the insitu concrete deck and cast iron arches would be extensive with a potential risk of damage to the existing cast iron elements & the identification of additional defects;

(k) The additional strengthening elements would be at risk of bridge strikes;

(l)

The bridge strike mitigation measures and signage will be unsightly and reduce the aesthetic of the re-furbished scheme.

 

Cheers

Jon.

Edited by user 12 December 2011 22:28:42(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

JonG attached the following image(s):
option5diag.jpg
Jon Goldfinch - Forum Administrator and Town Councillor
Whaley Bridge Town Council - Fernilee Ward
cllr.jong.wbtc@googlemail.com
JonG  
#156 Posted : 12 December 2011 22:17:49(UTC)
Retweet
JonG
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Administration, Member
Joined: 08/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 352
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 13 post(s)

Hi All

There is a new development. I received the following email this evening:

Subject: Current Planning Appeal for Bridge 42, Buxton Road, Whaley Bridge - New procedure
 
There is a current planning appeal lodged against refusal to grant planning permission for Listed Building Consent for removal of existing railway bridge and replacement with modern deck structure at Bridge 42, Buxton Road, Whaley Bridge.
 
Initially the appellant chose the written representation procedure and this was followed. However the Inspector appointed has requested that the appeal now proceeds as a hearing and a new timetable has been arranged.
Appeal reference: APP/H1033/E/11/2153685
Planning references: HPK/2010/0289
The timetable is as follows:
Inform consultees - 22 December 2011
Statements and 3rd party comments - 19 January 2012
Followed by a local hearing (date and venue to be decided)

 

Cheers

Jon.

Edited by user 14 December 2011 22:10:35(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Jon Goldfinch - Forum Administrator and Town Councillor
Whaley Bridge Town Council - Fernilee Ward
cllr.jong.wbtc@googlemail.com
buggyite  
#157 Posted : 13 December 2011 12:41:12(UTC)
Retweet
buggyite
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC)
Posts: 344
Man
Location: Bugsworth

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)

I have been a little too busy to fully develop my alternate idea for bridge 42, but basically my thinking goes along the lines of:

1. The present bridge was built to carry 3 tracks (up and down mains, plus the Shallcross branch), therefore it is 40-50% wider than is  necessary

2. Consequently, there is ample room within the present bridge, to build a new slightly longer bridge, using either steel or cast concrete beams, which would be carried on concrete bridge supports that are placed "behind" the current masonry supports, under the present track bed.

3. The new bridge would be slightly higher than the present bridge, so that no weight is carried by the damaged cast iron bridge members. allowing them to remain "as is", so that the town retains its listed structure.

4. As the present bridge incorporates steel or cast iron side plates above the trackbed level, these would effectively hide the new bridge structure, except for from the railway line itself.

5. The new bridge can be installed in phases -  firstly track panels either side of the bridge can be removed, and the holes for the new foundations dug, shuttering placed, and reinforced concrete poured in. This could be achieved in a single weekend possession, leaving the road and railway closed for less than 48 hours. The bridge beams can be fabricated offsite, and when ready, can be craned into place (having first removed the railway lines!) Going by the length of time it took for them to replace the bridge at Cadster, this could be achieved by a second weekend possession, requiring rail and road closure for no more than 24 hours this time.

Edited by user 13 December 2011 12:42:49(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Buggyite
I am a yellow factioner!
furnessvale  
#158 Posted : 13 December 2011 21:20:28(UTC)
Retweet
furnessvale
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 14/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 30

JonG wrote:

Hi Furnessvale,

It is in section 1.1 of the report I indicated - i.e the second R2200-P7198-lbc document at the link I gave.

I am not sure where you have got the view that DCC vetoed a rebuilding of the structure incorporating the cast iron beams, and that Network Rail wanted it to look no different externally. Even in the original 2008 application by Network Rail, it was Network Rail who were making the decisions on what the bridge should look like. Pleas can you point out where this vetoe is indicated as I cannot remember seeing it.

Cheers

Jon.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the link to the 25m tonnes figure.  As I say I think someone has a decimal point out of place especially when you look at the Limestock fact sheet which shows NATIONAL requirements.

I cannot lay my hands on the document referring to DCC objections.  I first referred to this in posting 96 but I will keep looking.  If I am wrong,( it has been known),  perhaps DCC and HPBC can lean on Network Rail to spend a few bob more and adopt (I think) item 6.2 Option 2 in the Birse report  R2200-P7F98-LBC-01 which hides a new box girder bridge behind the existing cast iron spandrels and new fibreglass parapets.  If any bridge strikes occur, no damage will accrue to the rail bridge but bits of cast iron will shower down on the good residents of Whaley.  As that is what would happen with the existing bridge there should be no objections.

George

 

Edited by user 13 December 2011 21:27:56(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified
PassingBy  
#159 Posted : 15 December 2011 22:27:40(UTC)
Retweet
PassingBy
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Member
Joined: 05/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2
Location: Near Whaley (ish)

Hello Whaleyites... if that's actually a towns peoples name!

I've come across this good forum again and thought I'd put my comments across. For the record, I work on the railway but not for Network Rail.

This sunday a crossover is been installed at Buxton station to allow freight from Hindlow and Great Rocks that serves Tunstead quarries to travel towards Manchester via Whaley Bridge for the first time. Work will be carried out to terminate trains at Dove Holes and to use something we call Single Line Working between Furness and Dove using the Up Line in the Buxton direction both ways. Basically, if your catching a train towards Manchester, you would have to use the ticket office side platform in the morning.

Dove Holes tunnel has got to be repaired so there is no alternative for freight to come through Whaley Bridge. http://www.networkrailme...IGHTS-BURNING-196a.aspx?

As a railway related side note, there will be changes to train services in Janurary with Whaley Bridge Up/Buxton Platform been raised to an acceptable level.

 

 

 

Edited by user 15 December 2011 22:28:16(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified
JonG  
#160 Posted : 16 December 2011 02:23:38(UTC)
Retweet
JonG
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Administration, Member
Joined: 08/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 352
Location: Whaley Bridge

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 13 post(s)

Manyy thanks PB  for this. It will be quite interesting to see how people react to 24 freight trains a day passing through Whaley.

These will presumably be passing quite slowly through Whaley over the bridge, as the speed is limited  at the moment.

Cheers

Jon.

Jon Goldfinch - Forum Administrator and Town Councillor
Whaley Bridge Town Council - Fernilee Ward
cllr.jong.wbtc@googlemail.com
Users browsing this topic
Guest
10 Pages«<678910>
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.