222007
Member
I assume that stock could be moved via Coalville if the line was expected to be closed for longer than a couple of days.
Something i had mentioned via facebook. I used to live on this line so one im very familiar with
I assume that stock could be moved via Coalville if the line was expected to be closed for longer than a couple of days.
Do you have prima facie knowledge to that effect?
I think that the key concern of most people is simply that the parapet came down rather quickly and 'easily' once NR started working on it.
I doubt that NR expected the parapet to collapse so, presumably, it was in a worse condition than they had expected - in turn, that must surely bring into question the scale of previous examinations of the structure ?
lots of leaps there! However I am sure you know best...........
( i will wait for an official report before making any judgement )
Yes, accept there are a lot of 'leaps'. It does, however, tie in with what NR themselves have said publicly.
It really doesn't. The level of supposition on your part is staggering, frankly.
Fair enough, I recognise that you will have far more real facts. Perhaps it may be advisable to suggest that the NR teams at Barrow should keep more to themselves in future.
Bill Harvey, from the Institution of Structural Engineers, said it was probably a combination of factors that had "caused trouble."
"It looks as though over recent months or years there's been water leaking from the main - Severn Trent don't think that's the case, but the hollows from the footpath shown in the photographs that I've seen look like that to me. So, water would have been washing down... That may then have caused the thing to be that little bit more fragile when they started with a digger - and away it went."
There is a little bit of a difference between centrally approved comms and having a quick chat with some bloke on the site
I'm not going to say any more other than you have assumed rather too much. In any event, a further visit to the site this afternoon revealed hardly any Network Rail guys (as expected), but rather a lot of National Grid gas vans, and their chaps busily working away.
I'm going to be very interested in the official findings in this case.
I'm sure that you didn't mean to make it sound that way, but I'm pretty sure that NR doesn't manage their infrastructure on a 'hope' basis.In view of the MML electrification, I wonder if the hope was that the bridge would last until replacement in a few months, as it doesn't look as if there would have been enough clearance for the wires under that bridge?
I'm sure that you didn't mean to make it sound that way, but I'm pretty sure that NR doesn't manage their infrastructure on a 'hope' basis.
The way some people have gone on, you would think we've got Mystic Meg doing our inspections.
Electrification clearance of the bridge was acceptable and it wasn't scheduled for replacement or for the deck to be lifted (having been surveyed for the new clearances).
It needed the parapets raised to 1800mm as normal but that work hadn't been scheduled. There would also have been discussions with the local highways department about replacing the parapets with reinforced parapets meeting H4a standard, or providing a restraint system on the bridge other than by parapets.
The way some people have gone on, you would think we've got Mystic Meg doing our inspections.
Electrification clearance of the bridge was acceptable and it wasn't scheduled for replacement or for the deck to be lifted (having been surveyed for the new clearances).
It needed the parapets raised to 1800mm as normal but that work hadn't been scheduled. There would also have been discussions with the local highways department about replacing the parapets with reinforced parapets meeting H4a standard, or providing a restraint system on the bridge other than by parapets.
Does anyone have a photo of what the failed earthwork and parapet protections look like now? I am intrigued as to how it could have been stabilised so quickly to allow reopening. That said. the failed earth seems to have sheered at an angle which could suggest a design feature.
No photo, but when I passed on the train at slow speed yesterday afternoon, the stuff holding back the earthworks and parapet remains looked like industrial strength chicken wire held in place by rock anchors. Only got a quick glimpse though.
That's very helpful. As I wrote earlier in the thread, eyeballing, it looked high enough above the rails not to need rebuilding for electrification. What is the minimum height above the rails, if you know that, please?
Does anyone have a photo of what the failed earthwork and parapet protections look like now? I am intrigued as to how it could have been stabilised so quickly to allow reopening. That said. the failed earth seems to have sheered at an angle which could suggest a design feature.
Great shot, and interesting to see how they are approaching the (presumably temporary) repair - mesh pinned to the original structure. I wonder how much of the displaced brickwork has been cleared from the site since this photo was taken, and what the long-term plans are for the bridge.Quite a good photo appeared on my Flickr feed yesterday from loose_grip_99 which was taken from a passing train on the slow lines. It's worth downloading the original 4059 x 2695 to get a detailed view.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/loose_grip_99/28651701442/in/photostream/
It will be an expensive one of course. I presume that NR has a contingency fund as part of its 5 year bid, since these events are bound to happen. The last few years (Dawlish, Dover, S and C, to name a few) has seen a fair number of major collapses.roadworks.org is showing a road closure till 10 February 2017 - obviously there'll be some leeway there, but it doesn't look like it's going to be a quick job.
Purely uninformed speculation but the GCR bridge over the MML at Loughborough is scheduled for completion by end of Dec 2016, with prep work due to start in Aug (Now??). The plan was to have the line possession during the Christmas shutdown.... so could they do the main repair work on the Barrow on Soar bridge during the same time to have it finished by Feb 2017?
It will be an expensive one of course. I presume that NR has a contingency fund as part of its 5 year bid, since these events are bound to happen. The last few years (Dawlish, Dover, S and C, to name a few) has seen a fair number of major collapses.
The alternative would be insurance, but for a Victorian infrastructure outfit like NR, the premiums would be horrendous.
What do we reckon for Barrow upon Soar - £2m?
If it is proven to have been caused by a burst water main then will the Water authority be liable?