Is the Colne valley viaduct going to be the UK's longest?

[Jack Hay]

HS2 are starting work on their Colne valley viaduct which they claim will be the longest in the UK at 2.1 miles. As with so much that HS2 claim, I think this is incorrect. I always understood that the longest viaduct was in Manchester, starting south of Piccadilly station (formerly 'Manchester South Junction') and extending via the through platforms, Oxford Road and Deansgate stations to a point on the MSJ&A west of the Dawson Street bridge where the viaduct becomes an embankment. I am not sure of the length of this but think it is over two miles. All three stations are built on the viaduct. Does anyone know the actual length?

Moreover, there may now be a longer viaduct in Manchester, if the distance is measured along the other route from Castlefield Junction towards Ordsall Lane but over the new Ordsall Curve towards Victoria, in which direction I guess the viaduct extends farther than it does to Dawson Street. Does anyone know the length of viaduct when measured along this route?

 

[zwk500]

I thought the longest viaduct was the London & Greenwich railway viaduct, at 3.75 miles

 

[hwl]

I thought the longest viaduct was the London & Greenwich railway viaduct, at 3.75 miles

Agreed!

 

[AlterEgo]

HS2 claim it'll be the longest railway *bridge*, which is correct.

The London and Greenwich viaduct is an elevated railway and not a bridge, as it was not built solely to cross an obstacle.

 

[stuu]

HS2 claim it'll be the longest railway *bridge*, which is correct.

The London and Greenwich viaduct is an elevated railway and not a bridge, as it was not built solely to cross an obstacle.

Yes, it's clearly a fudge to make it sound more impressive. Everywhere they refer to it as a viaduct, then claim it to be the longest bridge. There are no more significant obstacles in the Colne Valley than between London and Greenwich

 

[AlterEgo]

Everywhere they refer to it as a viaduct, then claim it to be the longest bridge.

Both are correct though aren't they? A viaduct may or may not be a bridge. It is not the longest viaduct, but it is the longest bridge.

There are no more significant obstacles in the Colne Valley than between London and Greenwich

So it's not going to cross a valley then, and in your opinion isn't a bridge? I'm confused.

Why is it being built? The London and Greenwich viaduct was elevated simply to avoid existing rights of way, not obstacles.

 

[stuu]

Both are correct though aren't they? A viaduct may or may not be a bridge. It is not the longest viaduct, but it is the longest bridge.

So it's not going to cross a valley then, and in your opinion isn't a bridge? I'm confused.

Why is it being built? The London and Greenwich viaduct was elevated simply to avoid existing rights of way, not obstacles.

It is not necessary from an engineering point of view, it could easily be an embankment. It is never more than 10m high, and the only obstacle of any note is the Grand Union Canal. So very similar to the London and Greenwich railway

 

[Mikey C]

It is not necessary from an engineering point of view, it could easily be an embankment. It is never more than 10m high, and the only obstacle of any note is the Grand Union Canal. So very similar to the London and Greenwich railway

It cross a series of lakes (plus the canal and River Colne) so nothing like the London and Greenwich railway

 

[stuu]

It cross a series of lakes (plus the canal and River Colne) so nothing like the London and Greenwich railway

it crosses a series of gravel pits, which are entirely man-made. The choice to not fill them in is entirely aesthetic/environmental, not for strictly engineering reasons

 

[AlterEgo]

It is not necessary from an engineering point of view, it could easily be an embankment. It is never more than 10m high, and the only obstacle of any note is the Grand Union Canal. So very similar to the London and Greenwich railway

It could be an embankment, but isn't.

The Circle Line could be a cutting, but it isn't.

 

[stuu]

It could be an embankment, but isn't.

Yes, exactly. That makes it a viaduct, not a bridge

 

[zwk500]

It is not necessary from an engineering point of view, it could easily be an embankment. It is never more than 10m high, and the only obstacle of any note is the Grand Union Canal. So very similar to the London and Greenwich railway

Being necessary or not does not determine whether something is a bridge or viaduct. A bridge is a man-made structure that spans a gap. There is no need for there to be any obstacle present, so long as it is possible to pass under the span. A viaduct is a bridge or bridges carrying a roadway.
The London and Greenwich Railway viaduct is a series of connected bridges that form a Viaduct (there are various points where the structural nature of the bridges changes for wide roads etc). The HS2 viaduct is (I think) one bridge that also functions as a viaduct - as in each span forms part of the whole structure, rather than a series of back-to-back bridges.

 

[snowball]

In discussions about bridges, viaducts and tunnels, it sometimes seems that everyone has their own definition of the words. Some people won't count a thing as a tunnel if it was built by cut-and-cover, and I remember one person who claimed that to qualify as a viaduct, a structure must have all its spans of equal length.

 

[stuu]

Being necessary or not does not determine whether something is a bridge or viaduct. A bridge is a man-made structure that spans a gap. There is no need for there to be any obstacle present, so long as it is possible to pass under the span. A viaduct is a bridge or bridges carrying a roadway.
The London and Greenwich Railway viaduct is a series of connected bridges that form a Viaduct (there are various points where the structural nature of the bridges changes for wide roads etc). The HS2 viaduct is (I think) one bridge that also functions as a viaduct - as in each span forms part of the whole structure, rather than a series of back-to-back bridges.

Exactly how is that different to the Colne valley viaduct? The Chiltern line is barely a mile away and manages to cross the same valley with a much smaller viaduct/bridge. A bridge, fundamentally, has one or two major spans. Once something has many repetitive spans it is a viaduct. But it is all semantics, it's more of the same nonsense that everything is world-beating or some other hyperbolic rubbish

 

[Taunton]

I remember this discussion from university days (fortunately, in the pub).

A bridge is a structure principally crossing over something else, such as a river, road, etc. A viaduct is principally across land at a difference of level. Each can have a minority of the other. Our particular discussion point was the south side approach to the main Forth (rail) Bridge structure. We came to the decision that it was a separate bridge, being principally over the water. The Tay (rail) Bridge, essentially of this repetitive construction from one side to the other over the estuary, is a bridge as well.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[SynthD]

The London Bridge viaduct has constant arches, the HS2 viaduct has supports and spans between them? The DLR switches from the former to the latter going from Tower Gateway to Poplar.

The longest spanning viaduct is an interesting fact to me.