Feltham bridge. RAIB report.

[DaveNewcastle]

The Rail Accident Investigation Booard have published their report into the faulire of Feltham Bridge last year. Its here. I recommend reading it.

There were no casualties and no derailments. But what is interesting about this incident is that the bridge in question is a very modest little bit of our inherited Victorian infrastructure - one of thousands on which our ageing rail network depends - on our suburban, rural, inter-city and freight lines.
My concern is that we don't look after these ancient structures adequately - in this case, we hadn't even been checking it (like an elderly person, they need regular visits to make sure they're okay! ANd that's before we start looking at the costs of keeping them healthy and alive!).

All of the talk on this forum about hopes for investment to build a new line here, a graded junction there, re-open a chord somewhere else and electrify every odd section that's possible, is all very exciting, but the real need which is increasingly pressing, is to make sure that the ancient structures that we already have and depend on daily, are properly inspected, evaluated and maintained. And that is never going to be cheap.

There are, in the study of infrastrucures, a tipping point where the cost of maintaining the old and inherited infrastructure exceeds the budget available intended for new developments, after which the infrastructure begins to collapse at an accellerating pace.

I really have grave concerns that many of our main-line large structures (bridges and tunnels in particular), will not survive the timespan of even some of the very minor projects we are funding right now.

 

[Greenback]

You may very well be right. I hope not, though!

 

[daikilo]

The Rail Accident Investigation Booard have published their report into the faulire of Feltham Bridge last year. Its here. I recommend reading it.

There were no casualties and no derailments. But what is interesting about this incident is that the bridge in question is a very modest little bit of our inherited Victorian infrastructure - one of thousands on which our ageing rail network depends - on our suburban, rural, inter-city and freight lines.
My concern is that we don't look after these ancient structures adequately - in this case, we hadn't even been checking it (like an elderly person, they need regular visits to make sure they're okay! ANd that's before we start looking at the costs of keeping them healthy and alive!).

All of the talk on this forum about hopes for investment to build a new line here, a graded junction there, re-open a chord somewhere else and electrify every odd section that's possible, is all very exciting, but the real need which is increasingly pressing, is to make sure that the ancient structures that we already have and depend on daily, are properly inspected, evaluated and maintained. And that is never going to be cheap.

There are, in the study of infrastrucures, a tipping point where the cost of maintaining the old and inherited infrastructure exceeds the budget available intended for new developments, after which the infrastructure begins to collapse at an accellerating pace.

I really have grave concerns that many of our main-line large structures (bridges and tunnels in particular), will not survive the timespan of even some of the very minor projects we are funding right now.

Dave,

I was probably reading the report as you typed the above. What I took away was the timeline of actions and the recommendations, which are not really in line with your statements above. What happened could have prevented me sleeping. I trust that corrective actions have been taken with those concerned, throughout the system.

As regards your apparent contention that increasing investment in the heritage railway will prevent new build, I think it is exactly the opposite; there comes a point where, in Present Value terms, new-build becomes cheaper than keeping the existing going. It needs cash, takes time and probably disrupts traffic, but brings a long-term solution. That said, it is probably not the case here.

 

[Ploughman]

What worries me is if one track has been closed to traffic due to loss of support. It would appear to me that the other track would be liable to collapse as well.
Why wern't both tracks closed at the same time?

 

[daikilo]

What worries me is if one track has been closed to traffic due to loss of support. It would appear to me that the other track would be liable to collapse as well.
Why wern't both tracks closed at the same time?

Very good question. See my first paragraph in my above post.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What I took away was the timeline of actions and the recommendations, which are not really in line with your statements above. . . .

Thanks for your comments, daikilo.

I did find this incident to be particularly interesting, not because of the specifics of the circumstances leading up to the failure, nor how it was dealt with after the first report of 'a dip' by a driver, but the more general circumstances that natural and human activity will impact of 150+ year old structures. I regret I didn't make clear the change from my commentary on the specifics at Feltham to the general concern of our ancient railways.

To elaborate: The Feltham report mentions a variety of possibly causal vectors - the references to children playing upstram, the change of river course, the foundation being (only) two feet below river bed, the felling of a willow tree branch. Whereas decay over the nations' many bridges and tunnels can have thousands of vectors, too many to anticipate. What interested me was that sense of a multiplying matrix of causes for failure. It seems to follow naturally from those, that any inspection regime would have an equally correspondingly multiplying matrix of factors to quantify and confirm.

In respect of how the Feltham matter was dealt with, and (with hindsight seeing photographic evidence of the scope of the failure from above and below) there is a lot to be said about the delay in closing both lines; I don't feel able to comment on those procedures in any specific sense. I am only able to make general observations that with large and ageing infrastructures then the liklihood of failure becomes greater with time, and grom an ever increasing number of potential caused. Consequently, the upkeep of ancient structures isn't very amenable to conventional risk assessment and risk management techniques! (I'm not a civil engineer. My father was, but my own studies were in the progressive failures of the infrastructure of the waterways of the Roman Empire! So don't ask me difficult techical questions about Railway Bridges!)

As regards your apparent contention that increasing investment in the heritage railway will prevent new build, I think it is exactly the opposite; there comes a point where, in Present Value terms, new-build becomes cheaper than keeping the existing going. It needs cash, takes time and probably disrupts traffic, but brings a long-term solution.

I actually agree with you. I was musing over the underlying costs of maintaning our ancient infrastructure as a liability (a liability of difficult assessment and convoluted procedures, and not just a cost). The consequence of this, if figures can be supplied to support the view, is exactly the conclusion you have drawn - that there is a point where it becomes more viable to build again (or divert). The Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse was dealt with by a diversion, the Forth Road Bridge failure is being dealt with by a re-build (I have personal connections there.))

 

[Old Timer]

What worries me is if one track has been closed to traffic due to loss of support. It would appear to me that the other track would be liable to collapse as well.
Why wern't both tracks closed at the same time?

Someone perusade me that the performance regime does not have an influence on this ?

All Network Rail offices have TV monitors showing realtime performance. They are there for one reason only.

 

[Wyvern]

All it needed was for someone to remove the original branch. It seems lots of people saw it about to occur, including a member of the public, but everyone left it to someone else.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

All it needed was for someone to remove the original branch. It seems lots of people saw it about to occur, including a member of the public, . . . .

Who even took a photograph of it!

But I can't help thinking that if it wasn't the tree-branch, then it would have been something else, at some othertime.

 

[boing_uk]

What bothers me is the inspection carried out by the consultant, who "did not seem to notice" the obstruction on their inspection visit and who's photos did not appear to show that aspect of the bridge.

Without seeing the inspection repot itself I can only summise, however what I suspect - having experienced this in other ways - is that the inspection was not as thorough as one would expect.

Also, I have to question the effectiveness of having the reports "signed off" by someone who is not leading the inspection regime who is not intimitely familiar with the infrastructure.

I have found from bitter experience that familiarity of the infrastructure is very important, if not vital for effective inspection. Having somone approve the inspection just for approvals sake is pointless IMO and is certainly not the way to work. Or at the very least, that the inspection report is seen by someone who is familiar with the infrastructure to know its history and follow trends. Just generating data for the sake of it is both an inefficient use of resource and an exercise in paper, especially if no-one is going to analyse it thoroughly.

 

[142094]

One point that the report makes that I think needs attention is the fact that there is no system that I know of to report problems with railway lines as a member of the public. The only one I can think of is the small signs placed on bridges and tunnels where you can contact Network Rail/Railway Authority when something has struck a bridge, which usually has a phone number on it. However a lot I see either are broken, have grafitti on them or are missing altogether. Now say if I saw a pothole in the road I would be able to contact the local council pretty easily, whereas I'd probably have a guess at trying to contact someone in Network Rail about a problem with a railway. Now image what Joe Public with little knowledge of the railway faces when he/she needs to contact someone like Network Rail.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . there is no system that I know of to report problems with railway lines as a member of the public.

. . . . image what Joe Public with little knowledge of the railway faces when he/she needs to contact someone like Network Rail.

Very good point.

This isn't an issue specific to the railways, there are some sectors/industries which are much worse at accepting critical help, but it IS a problem which, if resolved, could help all of us.

 

[Old Timer]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1346.aspx

 

[142094]

It isn't very clear what that number is for, it does say "For any other questions about the railway or help with problems caused by the railway". However there is no stand out number for emergencies. Is the number displayed on bridges in case of a bridge strike consistent throught the whole country or just for local areas? Perhaps this should be a dedicated number for railway-related emergencies?

 

[Old Timer]

The telephone number displayed on bridge plates, is that of the Control Office or another location which can instigate an emergency stop broadcast to trains.

I see no reason why the number on the website needs to be described as an emergency number - it quite clearly states it is manned 24 hours per day.

Most people will ring the Police or 999 anyway rather than call the Railway Operator, even when dedicated telephone numbers are shown.

Another thing to be considered is that there are a substantial number of people who do not feel comfortable speaking on the telephone to anyone other than their families and friends. This does not seem to get mentioned at all, but I am sure every reader here will be able to relate to at least one person if not more.