Ah, so just a coincidence, not a railway bridge at all.
They will have approved the design during planning. Bit daft to then be “unimpressed” afterwards. If the council wanted to widen the road they’d have had to contribute the extra cost, it’s not NR’s job to widen the roads.
Whatever. NR disrupt the local community for months and give nothing in return. The cost of an extra metre or so of width would be negligible in the context of the total bridge rebuilding cost. Would have been a useful compensatory gesture for months of disruption.
Would it? Wouldn't it mean building new abutments and reprofiling embankments rather than plonking a new bridge on the old ones? Sounds pretty expensive to me.
If it’s simply a case of plonking, why has it taken 4 months and counting?
Ok, so the canal bridge? Or river/stream? So they rebuilt a single flow bridge with a single flow bridge with traffic lights. As previously suggested, why on on earth was it not made into a 2 way carriageway?
Part of getting electrification costs down is avoiding spending money on things that don't contribute to the goal of getting the electrification done.
I didn't say it was simple, just that its a lot simpler than having to build new abutments
Fully agreed here; if the highway authority wanted the bridge widened, this would have been a good time to do that, but clearly they didn't deem it necessary or desirable enough to action it, and cover the extra costs involved.
In addition to what the poster above stated, that would have been the highway authority's (likely a local council) responsibility, not network rail's. It sounds as if improvements were already made by the addition of traffic lights.
The photo taken last October suggests they’re fairly well established for temporary lights, complete with a concrete slab to stand the thing on:
Battery powered requiring regular maintenance - that’s not a permanent solution. I think it’s a work around to get the road open whilst the negotiations continue. I’m no expert in traffic regulations, but don’t permanent traffic lights require more than one set of lights in each direction?
There’s certainly many instances where there’s more than one set facing you when stopped at the line, but I don’t think it’s an absolute requirement at every installation. Not really a railway question though.
I doubt the current installation is the end solution. I wonder who pays for the ongoing running and maintenance costs of the lights? Wasn’t an LCC liability before the new bridge was installed.
I'm reaalt surprised that this discussion is going in this direction. The bottom line is that NR are tasked and funded with electrification including where necessary, replacing structure that don't currently meet the standards required for a 25kV 100/125mph mainline. All safety aspects of the construction will also meet current railway safety standards.
No, but provided the replacement doesn't create any breaches of safety legislation on the road on the bridge structure, I doubt there is an obligation to fund what would be the equivalent of 'betterment' in insurance terms. In actual execution of the works, it is likely that the road surface and substrate will likely be of higher quality than it was before the works, but extending it's width or layout is the responsibility of the 'keepers' responsibility. If the road authorities are competantt, they will co-ordinate any road improvement with the electrification disruption and at the same time, improve the road stock.
Has this been imposed by the highway authority, or have NR chosen to do it to reduce the risk of a bridge strike (which is much more disruptive and potentially dangerous to them than to the highway)?
That’s the only one I can find. Can’t think why it wasn’t already signed though. The TWA drawings refer to it as a “cattle bridge”, that must be historic though…
This suggests the OLE north of Kettering North SATS won't be energised before June 2024, unless the industry regulars here know otherwise. The reference to wire upgrades south of Bedford (OLE125) and Christmas tallies with a @Bald Rick post on the Class 810 thread.
For clarity, the MP is referring to the bridge which carries the B582 / Blaby Road. This info tallies with post #7020.
Although as alluded to before , no one is sure when driver training will start. As far as we understand it ASLEF haven't spoken with the company about a training package.
Sorry yes got Road and Avenue mixed up