DfT Plan to Demolish Disused Bridges and Tunnels

[WesternLancer]

Interesting link within that article to a Railway Ramblers page about the site

Jan 2023 – Rare Norfolk bridge lost to “destructive forces”

HRE Group Press release: National Highways has “failed to fulfil its statutory obligations”, according to campaigners, after it infilled a historic bridge using permitted development rights that have now expired.

www.railwayramblers.org.uk

Page / Article on link is probably what the Gaurdian sourced story from and includes more detail about the case and the historic nature of the bridge in railway terms - extract:

Congham bridge, five miles east of King’s Lynn, is one of 3,100 legacy structures comprising the Historical Railways Estate, managed by the state-owned roads company on the Department for Transport’s behalf. One of only three surviving examples of its kind, the structure spanned the dismantled Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway which has featured in proposals to develop a cycle network across Norfolk.

On 14 October 2019, consultants acting for National Highways told the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk that Congham bridge represented “an ongoing and increasing risk to public safety” and was proposed for infilling under permitted development rights that apply only to temporary works in emergency situations. Costing £127K, the five-week project got underway on 22 March 2021, 17 months after the notification letter was sent.

The line passing beneath the bridge opened in 1879, but the original structure was completely replaced in 1926 – one of six similar projects to benefit from an innovative system of reinforced concrete components and blockwork, developed by pioneering railway engineer William Marriott.

Bridge specialist Alan Hayward – co-founder of Cass Hayward, a firm of consulting engineers – said: “Marriott was the engineer, locomotive superintendent and eventually general manager of the Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway. There was probably no other engineer to combine such multiple roles, except for the renowned Robert Stephenson.

“His achievements included the design of locomotives, station architecture and bridges, as well as the early development of precast reinforced concrete. A concrete works was established within the company’s workshops at Melton Constable, predating the facilities of railways such as the Southern and Great Western.

“The Congham bridge used precast jack arches, precast casings to the main beams, precast wall units, copings, bedstones and bricks. It was impressive and more elaborate than the other five he rebuilt, featuring elegant curved wing walls. The infilling leaves only two of its type to survive, both under National Highways’ custodianship.”

Certainly the issue does seem to be misuse of powers and desire not to use the proper processes for this sort of thing.

Yes, for me

 

[Halifaxlad]

There's also the fact that NH are flagrantly misusing powers that are only intended to allow temporary measures in an emergency situation, for locations where there is no emergency, and they are obviously intending the infill to be permanent.

I'm more outraged by this itself than the infilling!

It's creepining into becomming common practice!

 

[zwk500]

I'm more outraged by this itself than the infilling!

It's creepining into becomming common practice!

It has long been the practice of many organisations to use 'temporary' solutions to avoid the complex paperwork for permanent solutions.

 

[Trainbike46]

tbh, I do think it is important that organisations like Highways england go through the proper procedures, and face consequences when they don't

The only realistic consequence for national highways of not obtaining planning permission in advance is ordering the reversal of the infilling (or other work). It may be wasteful, but otherwise the planning system has no teeth, so wherever the planning permission wasn't obtained, a reversal should be ordered

 

[DelW]

It has long been the practice of many organisations to use 'temporary' solutions to avoid the complex paperwork for permanent solutions.

That doesn't make it right!! Such misuse is almost by definition illegal.

I would like to see the individuals who signed off permanent infills by inappropriate (and probably illegal) use of temporary measures powers, required to justify their actions.

The ICE have been quite vocal in condemning these infills. If the culprits are professional engineers, I think it would be appropriate to put them before a professional standards board.

 

[zwk500]

That doesn't make it right!! Such misuse is almost by definition illegal.

I didn't say it did

I would like to see the individuals who signed off permanent infills by inappropriate (and probably illegal) use of temporary measures powers, required to justify their actions.

If you look back in the thread, I make a very strong suggestion along these lines.

The ICE have been quite vocal in condemning these infills. If the culprits are professional engineers, I think it would be appropriate to put them before a professional standards board.

The engineering isn't really the problem though, it's the lack of process.

tbh, I do think it is important that organisations like Highways england go through the proper procedures, and face consequences when they don't

The only realistic consequence for national highways of not obtaining planning permission in advance is ordering the reversal of the infilling (or other work). It may be wasteful, but otherwise the planning system has no teeth, so wherever the planning permission wasn't obtained, a reversal should be ordered

I agree with this completely. Order them to remove it, fine them a hefty amount for having done it, and then tell them to put the paperwork in properly.

 

[DelW]

If you look back in the thread, I make a very strong suggestion along these lines.

The engineering isn't really the problem though, it's the lack of process.

The ICE (and other engineering institutions) are quite hot on honesty and integrity in professional actions. That's what I think needs addressing, if it has indeed been lacking here, rather than any engineering issues.

Other than that we're in agreement though!

 

[ashkeba]

Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...-historic-rail-bridge-filled-in-with-concrete

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2023 ==

While I think Highways england should go through the planning process first, I think this bridge could easily have been removed without detriment. The argument put forward:

Is hardly justification for maintaining a bridge at public expense that serves no purpose. if it matters that much the Campaigners can raise the funds to move the bridge and put it in one of their gardens.

Some of these bridges should be infilled and life moved on with. However they should do the consultation first so that it is done appropriately and sensitively rather than feeling like trying to get away with it on the cheap.

It seems very strange that bridge has deteriorated so much, from 40t to 7.5t, in less than 20years. Deliberate neglect by national highways or dodgy assesments by an agency with a desire to fill it in.

I am sure I remember something about a King's Lynn greenway 2019 or so because it could be a good ride from the current terminus station. I am sure it was to go under that bridge so I do not see why anyone would say infilling did not obstruct it. But I cannot find anything about the plan now!

 

[zwk500]

It seems very strange that bridge has deteriorated so much, from 40t to 7.5t, in less than 20years. Deliberate neglect by national highways or dodgy assesments by an agency with a desire to fill it in.

Entirely possible that it's only a cursory annual inspection and something that's been missed several times suddenly becomes much worse over a winter.

I am sure I remember something about a King's Lynn greenway 2019 or so because it could be a good ride from the current terminus station. I am sure it was to go under that bridge so I do not see why anyone would say infilling did not obstruct it. But I cannot find anything about the plan now!

This is why it's so important to go through the correct processes, as frustrating as they can be. If there is a genuine proposal to make use of the bridge, then that group can make it's representations and outline to the highways people when they expect to assume the maintenance liability. Then a fair decision can be made about the most suitable way to move forward.

 

[DelW]

It seems very strange that bridge has deteriorated so much, from 40t to 7.5t, in less than 20years. Deliberate neglect by national highways or dodgy assesments by an agency with a desire to fill it in.

Engineering consultants always have a tendency to err towards the answers their client wants (a.k.a. he who pays the piper calls the tune).

Structural assessment of old bridges, especially where design and construction records are lacking (as they often are) depends on input parameters which then need to be estimated. How cautious those estimates are may have a large effect on the outcome of the analysis. It's natural for the engineers making the assessment to err on the side of caution, and when that coincides with the client's desire to condemn the bridge, the likely outcome is a low estimate of the permitted loading.

(I've done such analyses for old bridges when we needed to move heavy cranes or similar over them, and it's always a tense moment when your calculations are being put to a full scale load test with someone else's very expensive piece of hardware.)

 

[Annetts key]

Yes, often information about the foundations that the bridge is built on is lacking, hence conservative assumptions are made…

But if the bridge was capable of carrying a known load in the past, then this should be taken into consideration. But I suspect it often is not.

Secondly, a lot of bridges were built using the engineers experience rather than calculating things. Obviously modern methods are more scientific.

 

[infobleep]

It has long been the practice of many organisations to use 'temporary' solutions to avoid the complex paperwork for permanent solutions.

And when they get found out, it should backfire on them.

The job should be done correctly and within the law.

 

[zwk500]

And when they get found out, it should backfire on them.

The job should be done correctly and within the law.

Totally agree. The process is only worth anything if everybody follows it.

 

[infobleep]

Graeme Bickerdike, an HRE member, said: “National Highways has used the same permitted development rights to infill at least six structures in the expectation that nobody would notice or care about its breaches of the statutory obligations therein.

But three local planning authorities have now asked for retrospective planning applications.

Row growing after third historic rail bridge filled in with concrete

National Highways faces third intervention by a local authority over infilling, after burying Congham bridge in Norfolk in tonnes of concrete

www.theguardian.com

Are the six infilled structures in three local authorities or are there up to three local authorities who haven't gone after NH for not doing their job fully?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2023 ==

Totally agree. The process is only worth anything if everybody follows it.

I work in Street Naming and Numbering and we only officially address properties when there is evidence of lawful development and building works have started on the ground.

I have even asked Royao Mail to remove addresses from their address database of postcodes before now.

If I allowed people to not follow the due process then it might be seen that was supporting their actions in some way and legitimising what they are doing.

I accept that having to unfill will cost tax payers money but alas it needs to be done.

There needs to also be an investigation as to how this occurred more than once and a plan put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

[snowball]

I just caught the tail end of an item on BBC Look North (Leeds) about a bridge which I think was on the former Tadcaster-Wetherby line within the area of Selby District Council.

 

[Greybeard33]

If the ground conditions are poor, is there a risk that the trackbed will subside under the weight of the concrete infill, leaving a gap between the concrete and the bridge deck?

 

[themiller]

If the ground conditions are poor, is there a risk that the trackbed will subside under the weight of the concrete infill, leaving a gap between the concrete and the bridge deck?

It’s unlikely as the track was pounded by trains before the track was lifted and the track bed was constructed to take this into account.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Entirely possible that it's only a cursory annual inspection and something that's been missed several times suddenly becomes much worse over a winter.

This is why it's so important to go through the correct processes, as frustrating as they can be. If there is a genuine proposal to make use of the bridge, then that group can make it's representations and outline to the highways people when they expect to assume the maintenance liability. Then a fair decision can be made about the most suitable way to move forward.

Of course the nonsense is that in the King's Lynn case, the people promoting the King's Lynn–Fakenham greenway are "the highways people", aka Norfolk County Council: https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/out-and-about-in-norfolk/norfolk-greenways

Officers started working on the project in April 2018, focusing on three disused railways:

• Weavers’ Way between Aylsham and Stalham
• King’s Lynn to Fakenham
• King’s Lynn to Hunstanton

Norfolk County Council are the highways authority in Norfolk. It's just that there's also National Highways (or Highways England, or the Highways Agency, or whatever they're called this week) who have two roles: running the nation's motorways (and almost-motorways) and, er, looking after old railway bridges.

Giving the motorway authority responsibility for historic structures like this makes no sense whatsoever. It only happened because the Cameron government wanted some eye-catching quangos to abolish, and decided that the British Railways Board was one of them. Then they belatedly realised that BRB Residuary actually did some stuff, like look after old railway structures, and so the responsibility would have to go to someone.

It would be better for everyone if National Highways were to give over the HRE structures to the highway authorities in each respective county, complete with the requisite bursary needed to take care of them.

 

[zwk500]

Of course the nonsense is that in the King's Lynn case, the people promoting the King's Lynn–Fakenham greenway are "the highways people", aka Norfolk County Council: https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/out-and-about-in-norfolk/norfolk-greenways

Sorry, I referred to "the Highways People" as I have no idea what the Highways Agency are calling themselves this week.

 

[billio]

I just caught the tail end of an item on BBC Look North (Leeds) about a bridge which I think was on the former Tadcaster-Wetherby line within the area of Selby District Council.

I know this bridge well, having driven, ridden, walked over it and watched them fill it in. This is no great loss as unless the plan is to run a cycleway through people's gardens situated on one side of the bridge, there are better ways of providing access to the old railway's route. Personally I would rather they had demolished the bridge but perhaps that's more expensive than filling it in.
The more worrying aspect of this infill is that it could encourage heavier vehicles to a narrow, twisting lane with high hedges which increases the danger to pedestrians and cyclists who use this quiet route.

 

[Annetts key]

I know this bridge well, having driven, ridden, walked over it and watched them fill it in. This is no great loss as unless the plan is to run a cycleway through people's gardens situated on one side of the bridge, there are better ways of providing access to the old railway's route. Personally I would rather they had demolished the bridge but perhaps that's more expensive than filling it in.
The more worrying aspect of this infill is that it could encourage heavier vehicles to a narrow, twisting lane with high hedges which increases the danger to pedestrians and cyclists who use this quiet route.

Campaign to try to get the relevant council to (1) impose a 7.5t (or lower if possible, e.g. 3.5t) weight restriction on the road, and, or (or both) a width restriction and (2) try to get them to reduce the speed limit to 20MPH.

In fact, for any road bridge over the route of a disused line, people should do the same. As it makes it a lot harder for the “National Highways (or Highways England, or the Highways Agency, or whatever they're called this week” to justify in-filling.

 

[DelW]

The most notorious and controversial of the bridge infills was at Great Musgrave in Cumbria. The local authority refused retrospective planning approval and required National Highways to remove the infill by 11th October (the expiry date of the temporary "emergency" powers under which it had been carried out).

The BBC reports that the infill has now been fully removed, and that the bridge does not now need any weight restrictions.

'Overloaded' Great Musgrave Bridge to open without weight limits

National Highways poured concrete under Great Musgrave Bridge in Cumbria, saying it was unstable.

www.bbc.co.uk

A bridge infilled with concrete because a government roads body said it was "overloaded" and unstable, is to reopen without any additional strengthening or weight restrictions.
In July 2021, National Highways (NH) poured hundreds of tonnes of stone and concrete under Great Musgrave Bridge in Cumbria, but was then refused retrospective planning permission and ordered to remove it.
Transport campaign organisation the HRE Group said it was a "breathtaking turnaround".
NH said the infill was a "valid solution" for safety and maintenance, but it recognised the "strength of feeling" about the bridge.
Graeme Bickerdike, from the HRE Group, said, for two years, NH had "told anyone who’ll listen that the bridge was weak and infilling was necessary" for safety reasons.
"But this contradicted all the available engineering evidence," he said.
"The bridge’s return to its rightful place as a historic landscape asset is welcome, but the fact that no strengthening was needed completely undermines National Highways.”
NH head of historical railways, Hélène Rossiter, said: "Our decisions at the bridge were driven by safety."

NH originally said the infill was essential to stabilise the Victorian structure, which it claimed was in danger of being "overloaded".
The roads agency said the bridge, built in 1862, was at risk of collapse if used by heavy vehicles.
But opponents to the infill scheme claimed it could hold lorries weighing up to 44 tonnes.
More than 900 people objected to the maintenance work.
Eden District Council, the authority then in charge of the site, refused retrospective planning permission and ruled the concrete had to be removed by 11 October.
The bridge has been closed for the past 13 weeks.
Ms Rossiter said NH had "worked to a careful methodology" to remove the infill, and a capacity assessment had then been carried out.
"It confirms that the bridge does not require a weight restriction and is able to carry all types of vehicle," she said.
On its website, external in September, NH said "refurbishment work and resurfacing of the deck" had removed the need for a weight restriction.

Mr Bickerdike said NH should have known the bridge was stable.
He said there was "no meaningful difference" between the condition of the bridge before and after infilling, and the refurbishment only involved "localised repointing and repairs to stonework damage caused by excavation of the concrete".
NH said it had replaced and pinned dropped and damaged stonework, repointed mortar and open joints, and resurfaced the deck to make it more waterproof.
The bridge is due to reopen no later than 18:00 BST on Friday, it said.
Ongoing maintenance and an annual inspection would be necessary, the government agency added.

 

[snowball]

NH's website has a long page on it

Project profile: Great Musgrave Bridge - National Highways

A bridge with a complicated history that’s helped shape us and inform how we work. Once part of the Eden Valley Railway (EVR) line, designed by eminent engineer Sir Thomas Bouch. The line became the shortest route between York and Glasgow.

nationalhighways.co.uk

which begins

Project profile: Great Musgrave Bridge

A bridge with a complicated history that’s helped shape how we work – including the establishment of a Stakeholder Advisory Forum where we engage with key stakeholders who advise on our choices in managing these assets.

 

[BrianW]

NH's website has a long page on it

Project profile: Great Musgrave Bridge - National Highways

A bridge with a complicated history that’s helped shape us and inform how we work. Once part of the Eden Valley Railway (EVR) line, designed by eminent engineer Sir Thomas Bouch. The line became the shortest route between York and Glasgow.

nationalhighways.co.uk

which begins

It's good to see this. Of course we know that the infilling ought not to have happened; IIRC, due process had not been followed.
Two questions-
1. How much will this have cost 'the public purse'? ie you and me the taxpayer/other projects delayed or deferred?
2. Might such matters be considered 'vital national infrastructure'?

 

[snowball]

2. Might such matters be considered 'vital national infrastructure'?

Surely not.

 

[DelW]

It's good to see this. Of course we know that the infilling ought not to have happened; IIRC, due process had not been followed.
Two questions-
1. How much will this have cost 'the public purse'? ie you and me the taxpayer/other projects delayed or deferred?
2. Might such matters be considered 'vital national infrastructure'?

A couple of the earlier BBC articles linked from the one I quoted in post #202 stated that:

The infilling is estimated to have cost NH £124,000 with a further amount of up to £431,000 said to have been allocated for the removal works.

 

[BrianW]

The infilling is estimated to have cost NH £124,000 with a further amount of up to £431,000 said to have been allocated for the removal works.

Thank you DelW.
Out of interest, did any heads roll- not suggesting they should have
'Learning points'? It looks, from the Project profile on the NH website (thank you Snowball), that quite a lot has?

The fact that it's a 'National Highways' project suggests it has National significance, hence National infrastructure, though not 'vital'! Agreeing with you Snowball.

 

[Trainbike46]

The infilling is estimated to have cost NH £124,000 with a further amount of up to £431,000 said to have been allocated for the removal works.

Thank you DelW.
Out of interest, did any heads roll- not suggesting they should have
'Learning points'? It looks, from the Project profile on the NH website (thank you Snowball), that quite a lot has?

The fact that it's a 'National Highways' project suggests it has National significance, hence National infrastructure, though not 'vital'! Agreeing with you Snowball.

National agencies do local projects (so without any national significance) all the time, whether that is Highways England / National Highways, Network Rail, etc.

 

[richard_S]

I just found this thread, Most interesting. Has there not been a law passed stopping the blocking of old railway routes?

 

[Wearhead]

The final chapter in a very sorry tale.

Are we surprised that infrastructure is so expensive in the UK with idiots like this in charge?

Cost of removing Great Musgrave Bridge's concrete infill revealed

The removal of a concrete infill of a bridge cost nearly triple the amount it cost to install.

www.bbc.co.uk

(BBC News item revealing cost of removing concrete from Gt. Musgrave bridge was £352,000, three times the amount it cost to install it)

Cost of removing bridge's concrete infill revealed​

Removing concrete from a Victorian railway bridge in Cumbria cost nearly triple the amount it cost to install.
National Highways poured hundreds of tonnes of concrete under Great Musgrave Bridge, near Brough, in July 2021, after claiming it was unstable.
It was refused retrospective planning permission and the former Eden District Council ordered it to be removed.
National Highways has revealed it cost about £352,000 to remove the infill, which is about three times the £124,000 it cost to do the work.
Mike Thompson, from the volunteer-run railway restoration group Stainmore Railway Company, described the cost as “eye-watering”.
“The damage has been caused by National Highways through its blinkered approach to managing these assets and a lack of dialogue with stakeholders,” he said.
“They should have to put things right. In that respect, we’ve been very lucky.”
The infill was initially installed because National Highways feared the structure could collapse if used by heavy vehicles.
It was later told by Eden District Council to remove the infill, and further tests determined the bridge could subsequently be reopened with no additional weight restrictions.

National Highways was ordered to remove the concrete by the former Eden Borough Council
Hélène Rossiter, from National Highways, said: “It cost £352,000 to safely and carefully remove the infill without damaging Great Musgrave bridge.”
Ms Rossiter said it would continue to inspect the bridge annually and deliver any future repairs that may be required so the bridge can be used for “many more years to come”.
She said National Highways would keep listening to the community when it came to figuring out how to best manage historic railway assets.