Bridge at Whaley Bridge to be replaced early 2023

[zwk500]

That is a bit garish! So have the council forced NR to put in a bridge with more restricted clearance than was necessary?!

I doubt it. The bridge will simply have been replaced like for like by NR as that's the easiest thing to do.

 

[Meerkat]

I doubt it. The bridge will simply have been replaced like for like by NR as that's the easiest thing to do.

NR would have just chucked some beams in wouldn't they, not the arch bits that the lines suggest restrict the clearance?

 

[PF19]

NR would have just chucked some beams in wouldn't they, not the arch bits that the lines suggest restrict the clearance?

Ideally a spanned bridge would be ideal to remove any clearance issues below, but the council and residents wouldn't approve that... It's listed (IIRC?) so they can't make considerable changes to it without upsetting an awful amount of people
Once the paint washes out a bit it should look better!

 

[zwk500]

NR would have just chucked some beams in wouldn't they, not the arch bits that the lines suggest restrict the clearance?

No because it was an existing arch bridge, so putting it back exactly as it was needs no extra permission, design or modification to the Abutments.

 

[DelW]

That is a bit garish! So have the council forced NR to put in a bridge with more restricted clearance than was necessary?!

Ideally a spanned bridge would be ideal to remove any clearance issues below, but the council and residents wouldn't approve that... It's listed (IIRC?) so they can't make considerable changes to it without upsetting an awful amount of people
Once the paint washes out a bit it should look better!

Quotes below are from the article linked from the very first post in this thread:

Network Rail has worked carefully with High Peak Borough Council and Historic England to make sure the work is carried out in consideration of the bridge's heritage status.
The team will preserve around one third of the original structure and replace the rest of the bridge in-keeping with its original design.

and

An application has been submitted to High Peak Borough Council (HPBC) for Listed Building Consent for a proposed partial reconstruction of a historic railway bridge in the town.

... which seem to confirm that it is listed, and the appearance would need to match the original.

 

[PF19]

Quotes below are from the article linked from the very first post in this thread:

and

... which seem to confirm that it is listed, and the appearance would need to match the original.

Cheers
I knew I'd seen it somewhere forgot to click back to the front page!

 

[Meerkat]

No because it was an existing arch bridge, so putting it back exactly as it was needs no extra permission, design or modification to the Abutments.

Functionally they have replaced it with beams haven’t they? And as they have altered a listed structure they needed permission anyway.

... which seem to confirm that it is listed, and the appearance would need to match the original.

Why is it listed - is it rare or otherwise particularly special?
Personally it would need to be very special to justify maintaining a restricted clearance when it’s just a fake now effectively (Need a new thread on whether expensive Trigger’s broom ‘preservation’ is a sensible use of resources - see Barmouth bridge…..).

 

[Dr Hoo]

What is the clearance? (The bridge in question doesn’t appear on at least some ‘truckers’ maps’. There are other low bridges nearby, I recognise.)

 

[MadMarsupial]

Functionally they have replaced it with beams haven’t they? And as they have altered a listed structure they needed permission anyway.

Why is it listed - is it rare or otherwise particularly special?
Personally it would need to be very special to justify maintaining a restricted clearance when it’s just a fake now effectively (Need a new thread on whether expensive Trigger’s broom ‘preservation’ is a sensible use of resources - see Barmouth bridge…..).

1863 cast iron bridge. Here is what English Heritage had to say when planning permission was asked in 2011 for a more modern design.

From High Peak Borough website

"English Heritage – Bridge 42 represents an important surviving example of a cast iron arch railway under bridge. As a class of railway bridge these are rare not least due to their vulnerability to vehicle impacts and the past frequency of emergency and pre-emptive demolitions to bridges of this type. The current application to demolish rests on the balance as laid out in Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, paragraph HE 9.2 “local Authorities should refuse consent for substantial harm or total loss of significance, unless there are substantial public benefits that outweigh harm or loss.” This replaces the former guidance in PPG15 which referred to “community benefit” in this context, however in this case we do not be believe the change in language would alter the issues to the addressed since the public benefits and losses relate to both the local and wider community both in terms of the historic environment and the operation of the rail network as “public goods.” The removal of the arch structure and deck would clearly result in the substantial harm to the significance of the bridge and should be regarded as effectively removing most of the special architectural and historic interest for which it was listed. We acknowledge that that the present arch structure could not be strengthened to carry heavy freight at line speed hence if the need for this can be demonstrated to your Authority’s satisfaction and your Authority judges that the public benefits of demolition outweigh retention that you should determine on this basis. Should this be the case English Heritage would be keen to engage in a constructive dialogue with your Authority with regard to the recording, salvage and technical analysis of the cast iron segments. We would not however seek to take a view on the design of the new span. If in your Authority’s opinion the case for overwhelming need for line speed heavy freight is not made we believe there may still be further scope to address options for bridge strengthening which will retain the historic arch structures in situ."

The new bridge includes 30% of the original structure.

There are a number of conflicting views in Whaley as to whether 30% was worth preserving.

 

[furnessvale]

That is a bit garish! So have the council forced NR to put in a bridge with more restricted clearance than was necessary?!

A complicated story which is why it has taken years to resolve.

Derbyshire County Council wanted a new flat bridge which would have provided increased clearance for HGVs, and objected to anything else.

Having got THEIR bypass, Whaley Bridge residents and council wanted any new bridge to look like the old one, but crucially to keep the existing reduced clearance to restrict HGVs. They objected to anything else. They also objected to ANY new bridge enabling the railway to be once again used for freight.

Every new design was rejected by one side or the other.

With the old bridge getting perilously fragile, as demonstrated by one of the old beams breaking in two as it was being lifted out, it looks like NR have forced their hands and finally got the job done.

Under normal circumstances, I cannot see more than 2-3 freights using the line each way daily because they are delivered to the Stockport/Man Picc area down that line which is busy enough already. However it will be vital if Dove Holes (Midland) Tunnel ever gives trouble again.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2023 ==

No because it was an existing arch bridge, so putting it back exactly as it was needs no extra permission, design or modification to the Abutments.

Once it was listed the trouble started for NR. Two similar spans in the area were replaced by flat spans before listing became an issue. A similar one over the canal at Ashton-under-Lyne was replaced by a flat span, but the existing cast iron arch beams were incorporated at each side as non load bearing decoration.

 

[AndyPJG]

Press release

Buxton Line closed for extra day due to bridge upgrade complications

Rail passengers are being advised that the railway between Hazel Grove and Buxton will need to stay closed for an extra day after unexpected complications with a Victorian railway bridge rebuild.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

Video found on Youtube showing some of the work in progress that may be of interest

Historic Cast iron Railway Bridge 42 repairs and preservation

 

[snowball]

Press release

Major Whaley Bridge railway and road upgrade reaches final phase

Railway engineers are reaching the final phase of a major project to improve passenger journeys and safety for road users through Whaley Bridge in the High Peak.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

Railway engineers are reaching the final phase of a major project to improve passenger journeys and safety for road users through Whaley Bridge in the High Peak.

Network Rail has invested £5.1m to overhaul the Victorian-built Buxton Road railway bridge, which takes the Buxton line over the main road through the town.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

So, the main A5004 Buxton Road under the railway line re-opening to road traffic sometime this Friday? (Was still closed today).