nickswift99
Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 279
In which case why are they even running a train service? Surely better to just offer a taxi?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Nuneham Viaduct shut - Didcot- Oxford
- Thread starter deltic
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I suspect there's more than an element of 'must be seen to be doing something' to it - not least for political angles.
I imagine there wouldn't be any service at all were it not for the Culham Science Centre.
nickswift99
Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 279
Reminds me of Sinfin Central...
Afiact one thing that really hasn't been made clear in any of the reporting so far is just how much of the embankment/abutment is going to be replaced.
I suspect that they're going to need to bring in a lot more spoil than the dig out, if the problem is a void.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
My thoughts exactly!
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 33,032
100% of the abutment, going by what’s been said in the NR videos.
They’re going to need to get a big piling rig in (presumably augered) so the embankment will need to be taken back to the haul road level and stoned up as a piling mat.
Sure but what counts as "abutment"? does "abutment" just reffer to the immediate support for the bridge or does it reffer to all the way back to the point where the railway meets natural ground level.
I had to use Google to find out what 'augered' meant. The first it offered was 'to crash catastrophically'.
I'm assuming 'boring a hole' is closer?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 33,032
The abutment is just the concrete and masonry structure that supports the bridge steelwork. The embankment will have to be removed as far as necessary to make space to rebuild the abutment. Then the embankment material will be reinstated up against the back of the abutment.
Except that Culham gets used by commuters and is an awkward road journey from Didcot.
If you are going to serve Culham, you might as well call at Appleford on the way back - and Didcot to Appleford via Culham won't be much slower than a taxi and probably cost less.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 4,840
For work over water like this, it's a legal requirement to have a manned safety boat on standby at all times. IIRC it can be allowed to move personnel around the site, but neither it nor its helmsman is allowed to do any other tasks - basically it has to be immediately available rescue anyone who falls in. (At least, that was the rule when I was doing marine work in the 1980s).
Much of this work is being done by a marine contractor, who will probably have a fleet of such boats.
The auger is basically a large drill, usually mounted on a crane or hydraulic rig, which as you say drills a hole into the ground. These are typically 600 - 900mm diameter, though other sizes are available.I had to use Google to find out what 'augered' meant. The first it offered was 'to crash catastrophically'.
I'm assuming 'boring a hole' is closer?
I think I heard Stuart Calvert say there would be 200 lorryloads of spoil from the embankment to remove, and the same to bring back later. I can't find that now; I suspect it was on BBC South Today and has now vanished from iplayer.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 17,833
NR will be paying double what the compensation would have been if it was planned. Initially more than that as it would have fell under Schedule 8. The line was blocked, you just initally whack stuff in on diversionary routes and then try and refine it as you go on.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 33,032
Are you both discussing the same sort of access rights? I wondered if in the overall context the question might be about accessing the work site by the repair contractors, but might have read it wrong…
Nicholas43
Member
Is there a source for that news? Real time trains is (currently) showing only buses in May.
My weekly walk took me past the works on the south side of the river yesterday. I can go into more detail if anyone cares but basically the footpath is open, despite a few non-authoritative (I think) 'Closed' signs as you head west towards the works. Strangely there are no Closed signs at all if you take the same path past the works but heading east, except perhaps for one which is well past them. The paths are numbered using a parish/path/section scheme on the map I included at post #656. I crossed the railway at the level crossing on 183/1/60 and then crossed the haul road which follows 183/5/10 and 183/1/50. The haul road enters the fenced works compound some way before the MotoCross track. There are plant items and quite a few Portakabins there. I was approached by one of the works staff before I reached this point and he asked if I knew where I was heading. When I said "to the river bank" he explained that there was a small diversion via the MotoCross site which would keep walkers safely outside the fence.
As was discussed above, the best views of the works under the bridge are from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river. You can't see much of these from the south bank, but you can get a better view of the embankment. Here's a phone snap from the top of the MotoCross track looking down onto the water meadow:
Once down on the meadow I panned from north to south along the embankment:
The only obvious development on the embankment is that the two flights of access steps, which were originally very close to the abutment, have been moved south, leaving a clear part of the embankment flank which looks like it might be dug out at some point.
It's not obvious from those pictures but the water meadow is generally wet - anything from an inch or two to whole areas of standing water. Here are a couple of views looking west with the river bank to the right:
Apart from one small detour up onto the river bank the footpath on the north edge of the water meadow is clear and dry though.
As was discussed above, the best views of the works under the bridge are from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river. You can't see much of these from the south bank, but you can get a better view of the embankment. Here's a phone snap from the top of the MotoCross track looking down onto the water meadow:
Once down on the meadow I panned from north to south along the embankment:
The only obvious development on the embankment is that the two flights of access steps, which were originally very close to the abutment, have been moved south, leaving a clear part of the embankment flank which looks like it might be dug out at some point.
It's not obvious from those pictures but the water meadow is generally wet - anything from an inch or two to whole areas of standing water. Here are a couple of views looking west with the river bank to the right:
Apart from one small detour up onto the river bank the footpath on the north edge of the water meadow is clear and dry though.
Last edited:
That is what I was asking about, sorry if not clear
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 33,032
Theres an early Act that gives “railway companies” power of entry to land and property to either deal with accidents or damage, or to prevent accidents or damage. Those powers appear to have been passed down to Network Rail. I recall from previous discussions they would only expect to exercise that right if a landowner refused to negotiate. I believe all statutory undertakers, eg Gas, Water and Electricity networks, also have similar rights of emergency access.
It would appear that any landowner who objected to building a temporary road or such like would need to persuade the Secretary of State that there was an obvious alternative means of access.
I think this is the authority:
14 Power for railway companies to enter upon adjoining lands to repair accidents.
It shall be lawful for the lords of the said committee to empower any railway company, in case of any accident or slip happening or being apprehended to any cutting, embankment, or other work belonging to them, to enter upon any lands adjoining their railway for the purpose of repairing or preventing such accident, and to do such works as may be necessary for the purpose: Provided always, that in case of necessity it shall be lawful for any railway company to enter upon such lands, and to do such works as aforesaid, without having obtained the previous sanction of the lords of the said committee; but in every such case such railway company shall, within forty-eight hours after such entry, make a report to the lords of the said committee, specifying the nature of such accident or apprehended accident, and of the works necessary to be done, and such powers shall cease and determine if the lords of the said committee shall, after considering the said report, certify that their exercise is not necessary for the public safety: Provided also, that such works shall be as little injurious to the said adjoining lands as the nature of the accident or apprehended accident will admit of, and shall be executed with all possible despatch; and full compensation shall be made to the owners and occupiers of such lands for the loss or injury or inconvenience sustained by them respectively by reason of such works, the amount of which compensation, in case of any dispute about the same, shall be settled in the same manner as cases of disputed compensation are directed to be settled by the Acts relating to the railway on which such works may become necessary: Provided always, that no land shall be taken permanently by any railway company for such works without a certificate from the lords of the said committee as herein-after described.
Railway Regulation Act 1842
An Act for the better Regulation of Railways and for the Conveyance of Troops.www.legislation.gov.uk
Last edited:
Elecman
Established Member
The problem with using those power if the same landowner controls other approved access rights across his land is that they then get withdrawn as a result
I suppose he might point at the river ?
In practice the new haul road is much smoother and wider than the track it's superceded - the one which gave access to the MotoCross circuit. I wonder whether the landowner might have negotiated to keep it ? It is unsealed though, so I don't know what it would/will be like after a couple of wet winters.
RTT is now showing the shuttles for tomorrow.
Maybe a foolish question, but I'd have thought the bridge deck would have twisted with such a drop. Are Network Rail planning to rebuild the abutment but leave the twist or do they have a mechanism to remove the twist through some sort of jacking procedure? I would imagine a bridge of this age not performing so well with the internal stresses of a twist, likewise undoing the twist may do more damage if affected elements not fully strenthened/repaired. It would be worrying to have them just rebuild the abutment and not fix the deck.
I'm also conscious of the old British Rail adage that there's nothing more permanent than a temporary fix; meaning when the line repoens, everything else will be put on the back burner/forgotten until the next incident.
Cost wise Network Rail incurring fines may be more than the physical works once all is tallied; I'm sure the contractor is likewise not going to be short a bob or two come bonus time.
I'm also conscious of the old British Rail adage that there's nothing more permanent than a temporary fix; meaning when the line repoens, everything else will be put on the back burner/forgotten until the next incident.
Cost wise Network Rail incurring fines may be more than the physical works once all is tallied; I'm sure the contractor is likewise not going to be short a bob or two come bonus time.
Snow1964
Established Member
The bridge deck is solid, (technically it is formed of plates in what is known as as a hog back girder, a mix of arch and tension, not going to bend easily). deck just sits on two ends. This one has two decks sitting on Central pillar, might noy even be physically joined apart from a metal plate over the narrow gap (to stop ballast falling through gap, rather than structural)
Would only get a twist if one corner fell, but the early photos suggested it sunk at one end across its width and deck just tilted. The cracks in the brickwork suggests that the bearings (plates on top of bricks that steel deck rested on) loaded bricks at certain points, presumably whichever bit was highest, so went downwards as a solid lump rather than bending.
Nicholas43
Member
... mistakenly, as arriving into Radley on platform 2.
They seem to be in RTT as Very Short Term, only 2 May. Are they planned to continue - maybe only Mon to Fri ?
Last edited:
- Status