Sowerby Bridge (Bridge Strikes)

Halifaxlad

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
459
Not so long since I ended up walking along Town Hall St and under the viaduct on the main road. The same viaduct that is occasionally hit by HGV's although usually from the Ripponden direction and presumably not long after leaving the M62. Having said this, the bridge appears to be more damaged upon the other (Halifax) side where the full arch is obscured by the viaduct's now redundant Western steel girder extension. Does anybody know why its still they're ?

sb.png sb2.png

I would have though to NR would have removed this small section to make the viaduct arch more visible.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ianigsy

Member
Joined
12 May 2015
Messages
549
Income from the car wash advertising?

I suspect it's one of those situations where nobody really knows what's holding what up and the concealed edge of the arch may in fact be in worse condition. The whole of Sowerby Bridge station is a bit disorganised so perhaps the next upgrade will see the bridge replaced.
 

Halifaxlad

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
459
Income from the car wash advertising?

I suspect it's one of those situations where nobody really knows what's holding what up and the concealed edge of the arch may in fact be in worse condition. The whole of Sowerby Bridge station is a bit disorganised so perhaps the next upgrade will see the bridge replaced.
I can appreciate that, although I would have thought that just the section of the redundant bridge over the road would have been removed as a quick win to improve visibility of the concealed arch. The abutments and remaining bridge could always be removed later.

Obviously this would require the parapet to be rebuilt although I can't see this being too difficult.
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,853
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
But taking it down costs money, whereas letting it fall down slowly doesn't. If it isn't carrying trains then why should NR worry? Also, the masonry arch, whilst scarred, will take plenty more abuse yet.

Personally, I don't think removing the flat deck will make one iota of difference to the frequency of spacialy-unaware motorists trying to get under the bridge - experience tells us this is true, even when the bridge concerned is a youtube star: cf 11foot8.com
 

Halifaxlad

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
459
But taking it down costs money, whereas letting it fall down slowly doesn't. If it isn't carrying trains then why should NR worry? Also, the masonry arch, whilst scarred, will take plenty more abuse yet.

Personally, I don't think removing the flat deck will make one iota of difference to the frequency of spacialy-unaware motorists trying to get under the bridge - experience tells us this is true, even when the bridge concerned is a youtube star: cf 11foot8.com
I understand what you mean for typical bridges.

My point regarding this specific bridge is that the inner arch is most likely getting hit more because the approach up to it is obscured, especially by drivers who haven't done this route before or in a long time and only realizing that their vehicle needs to be more central when its too late.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,417
But taking it down costs money, whereas letting it fall down slowly doesn't. If it isn't carrying trains then why should NR worry? Also, the masonry arch, whilst scarred, will take plenty more abuse yet.

Personally, I don't think removing the flat deck will make one iota of difference to the frequency of spacialy-unaware motorists trying to get under the bridge - experience tells us this is true, even when the bridge concerned is a youtube star: cf 11foot8.com
Now raised to 12' 4" but still producing plenty of video footage...
 

Top