Ribblehead Viaduct

[Elecman]

I also understood that there was a full width concrete deck laid to spread the load. Aside from the capacity increase, which may or may not be required in due course, other advantages of double-tracking the viaduct are

- that you eliminate two sets of points that can fail particularly in snow or ice when the nearest linesman is likely some distance and time away.
- increased speed should be allowable.

And save a not inconsiderable amount of electricity used in heating those point ends As the signaller at Blea Moor box once said to me when installing the original points heating pads and strips ( yes it needed both up there). Can you see the big hills over yonder? If yes it’s about to rain or snow ( depending on the season) if not it already is!

 

[Condor7]

What potential?

Quite a lot if the right amount of money was spent on the line.
This thread has already mentioned the passenger link to Manchester via Clitheroe something a recent survey by The Friends Of The Settle & Carlisle Line showed there was a demand for.

Let’s face it if the line was upgraded to its full potential without speed restrictions etc, then the getting from West and South Yorkshire to Scotland would be unrivalled. As passenger numbers and overgrowing are at an all time high, I don’t doubt they would be well used.

 

[edwin_m]

And save a not inconsiderable amount of electricity used in heating those point ends As the signaller at Blea Moor box once said to me when installing the original points heating pads and strips ( yes it needed both up there). Can you see the big hills over yonder? If yes it’s about to rain or snow ( depending on the season) if not it already is!

But if trains are still to terminate at Ribblehead you still need two points and associated heating for a crossover.

 

[matacaster]

But if trains are still to terminate at Ribblehead you still need two points and associated heating for a crossover.

Perhaps Northern might like to reflect on the wisdom of starting at Ribblehead in the evening. I understand that was owing to lack of rolling stock at the time, which should no longer be the case in the near future. It would surely make more sense to run the trains thru to Leeds and Carlisle providing later and better journey opportunities.

 

[30907]

Perhaps Northern might like to reflect on the wisdom of starting at Ribblehead in the evening. I understand that was owing to lack of rolling stock at the time, which should no longer be the case in the near future. It would surely make more sense to run the trains thru to Leeds and Carlisle providing later and better journey opportunities.

The 1949 down is presumably contractual, as its predecessor was running in BR days (it was diverted from the Bentham line when RRNE and RRNW were split; I can't remember if it terminated at Settle until the box there closed). I don't know how busy it is beyond Long Preston.
The return working is close behind the new up evening train, which (last July!) was pretty empty, and could easily cover the stops.
I doubt if Northern could persuade the DfT to subsidise the additional mileage, and if the Ribblehead crossover didn't exist you would either run to Garsdale or - more economically - provide a minibus from Hellifield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps Northern might like to reflect on the wisdom of starting at Ribblehead in the evening. I understand that was owing to lack of rolling stock at the time, which should no longer be the case in the near future. It would surely make more sense to run the trains thru to Leeds and Carlisle providing later and better journey opportunities.

I'd ideally like to see a 2-hourly clockface all-stations service on the entire line, personally. I think this is of more benefit from the very old-fashioned approach it uses at the moment.

 

[yorksrob]

The 1949 down is presumably contractual, as its predecessor was running in BR days (it was diverted from the Bentham line when RRNE and RRNW were split; I can't remember if it terminated at Settle until the box there closed). I don't know how busy it is beyond Long Preston.
The return working is close behind the new up evening train, which (last July!) was pretty empty, and could easily cover the stops.
I doubt if Northern could persuade the DfT to subsidise the additional mileage, and if the Ribblehead crossover didn't exist you would either run to Garsdale or - more economically - provide a minibus from Hellifield.

It used to be reasonably busy from Settle Southwards on a Friday night. The new timetable has a service from Carlisle at a similar time which could pick up a few people from there

 

[yorksrob]

But if trains are still to terminate at Ribblehead you still need two points and associated heating for a crossover.

Given the freight sidings there, I would be surprised if it didn't have to have a crossover there anyway. Of course, this would be less critical to passenger services than the entrance to the single track section.

 

[thenorthern]

I would think the cost of doubling the track wouldn't be justified given that it would require a lot of structural inspection on a line which is not very busy.

 

[chorleyjeff]

Unless the timetable solution required to avoid trains passing here means 'problems' elsewhere. Unless there is out-of-course running, it will never look like insufficient capacity at the place in question as the timetable will be planned around what is available; trains will appear when the timetable plan says so. If another track magically appears, this opens up all sorts of other timetable possibilities that may or may not actually be used. An immediate advantage could be perturbation resilience that would not appear in the timetable plan but would help keep things on time at Carlisle and Settle.

I was not referring to a few minutes between trains. More like two hours. Given the slow schedules and long gaps between trains over the viaduct I can only see very minimal problems caused at, say, Leeds by conflicts at the viaduct. To avoid any problems caused by problems between Settle and Carlisle a good solution might be to make the line self contained between Skipton and Carlisle with good connections at Skipton for Leeds and Bradford.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I was not referring to a few minutes between trains. More like two hours. Given the slow schedules and long gaps between trains over the viaduct I can only see very minimal problems caused at, say, Leeds by conflicts at the viaduct. To avoid any problems caused by problems between Settle and Carlisle a good solution might be to make the line self contained between Skipton and Carlisle with good connections at Skipton for Leeds and Bradford.

And lose, what? I'd guess 20% of passengers from stations like Settle, Hellifield, Ribblehead and Horton overnight? 10% from Appleby?
It would mean one change to stations beyond Skipton, and for those travelling beyond Leeds, at least two. Many people simply detest changing, or even refuse to do so: if you are going eg Long Preston or Gargrave to Shipley or Leeds, would you blame them? True, some might just drive to Skipton and get the EMU services, but others will just drive - or not go at all.

 

[ItsGrimUpNorth]

I'd ideally like to see a 2-hourly clockface all-stations service on the entire line, personally. I think this is of more benefit from the very old-fashioned approach it uses at the moment.

Agreed. Something the line has been crying out for. As someone who uses the line for work occasionally, a far more rigid, set, timetable would do wonders.

Trains two hourly at say 0600 through to 2000 each way would do wonders for the line. Would a 2200 service possibly be too late? Though could see localised usage at the Northen/Southern ends of the line.

 

[matacaster]

The 1949 down is presumably contractual, as its predecessor was running in BR days (it was diverted from the Bentham line when RRNE and RRNW were split; I can't remember if it terminated at Settle until the box there closed). I don't know how busy it is beyond Long Preston.
The return working is close behind the new up evening train, which (last July!) was pretty empty, and could easily cover the stops.
I doubt if Northern could persuade the DfT to subsidise the additional mileage, and if the Ribblehead crossover didn't exist you would either run to Garsdale or - more economically - provide a minibus from Hellifield.

Perhaps the services could be extended to Glasgow, would represent a decent journey time from Leeds (or Manchester) for early evening departure.

 

[30907]

It used to be reasonably busy from Settle Southwards on a Friday night. The new timetable has a service from Carlisle at a similar time which could pick up a few people from there

I thought it used to be busy from Ribblehead itself during the Three Peaks season - not to mention the occasional drinker? As you say, the new up Carlisle could cover those stops - I was wondering more about the down train.

 

[ArchieWoodbine]

As others have said, there are other lines with a higher frequency which are also constrained by a single-line portion: Trowse swing-bridge at Norwich and Mountfield tunnel for Hastings, for instance. Regarding the latter, that's also worked by absolute-block. It's the length of the block-sections that are the limiting factor on the Settle-Carlisle I'd imagine. Putting in some new intermediate-block signals would probably be the best way to increase capacity. A simmilar scheme happened in Cornwall recently to improve capacity and remove some particularly long block-sections.

 

[yorksrob]

I thought it used to be busy from Ribblehead itself during the Three Peaks season - not to mention the occasional drinker? As you say, the new up Carlisle could cover those stops - I was wondering more about the down train.

I've tended to be on it in winter when its often been empty.

 

[30907]

I've tended to be on it in winter when its often been empty.

Thanks.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Agree that the single line section isn't a major issue even if a clockface 1tp2h service was implemented. If a few minutes longer wait is required at Skipton for a path through to Leeds, it won't be significant considering the overall journey time.

There are other single line sections that deserve attention first such as the long (5 stations) stretch between Stocksmoor and Huddersfield. A loop at Honley or between there and Berry Brow (the platform of which occupies the track bed of the former up line)* would allow 2tph, which even with the long journey time to Meadowhall and Sheffield, I predict would see usage skyrocket, especially as it looks like the Saturday service is coming back!

*= A loop at Lockwood may be better, as it would allow a longer turnaround time at Huddersfield. Apologies for the topic diversion, if there's interest in discussing the potential for improvements on the Penistone line, I'll start a thread...

 

[EveningStar]

I'm not at all sure about the exact meaning of all the terms being used here in bridge design - but there is something about "imposed load" - and with double track, you would have, potentially, double the imposed load of a single track line ie the mass of two tracks+ ballast and two trains, surely?
Plus, possibly, some dynamic component x 2?

Spandrel walls are the inverted almost triangle sections of masonry topping the piers and between arches. From the research, which was testing disused viaducts to destruction, the integrity of these walls have a much more significant effect on viaduct integrity than positioning of imposed loads. Essentially, masonry viaducts are tremendously over-specified and failure is deficient original construction or poor maintenance, or a combination of both, rather than loads. The 1980's repair work to Ribblehead included, I recall, grouting the rubble interior and providing a waterproof deck, both measures that would effectively stabilise the spandrel walls. Granted it is the Dales and Ribblehead has taken a lot of weather since then, yet my expectation is that the magnitude or positioning of loading from redoubling is unlikely to be a significant issue.

Interesting aside, as dual-qualified surveyor and civil engineer specialising in historic buildings, I have sharp views about rubble infill to stone walls. Suffice to say, the reported lack of a rubble infill to Newcastle's High Level Bridge enhances, in my opinion, the reputation of Robert Stephenson.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Spandrel walls are the inverted almost triangle sections of masonry topping the piers and between arches. From the research, which was testing disused viaducts to destruction, the integrity of these walls have a much more significant effect on viaduct integrity than positioning of imposed loads. Essentially, masonry viaducts are tremendously over-specified and failure is deficient original construction or poor maintenance, or a combination of both, rather than loads. The 1980's repair work to Ribblehead included, I recall, grouting the rubble interior and providing a waterproof deck, both measures that would effectively stabilise the spandrel walls. Granted it is the Dales and Ribblehead has taken a lot of weather since then, yet my expectation is that the magnitude or positioning of loading from redoubling is unlikely to be a significant issue.

Interesting aside, as dual-qualified surveyor and civil engineer specialising in historic buildings, I have sharp views about rubble infill to stone walls. Suffice to say, the reported lack of a rubble infill to Newcastle's High Level Bridge enhances, in my opinion, the reputation of Robert Stephenson.

Interesting. Thank you. Only the final point - why does that enhance Stephenson's reputation? Put another way, I suppose, what was the reason for using rubble infill - is it no use? Must say it 'feels' right for, I suppose, the chance to take some vertical load, if not very much.

 

[Midnight Sun]

The 1980's repair work to Ribblehead included, I recall, grouting the rubble interior and providing a waterproof deck, both measures that would effectively stabilise the spandrel walls. Granted it is the Dales and Ribblehead has taken a lot of weather since then, yet my expectation is that the magnitude or positioning of loading from redoubling is unlikely to be a significant issue.

I seem to recall reading that when the bailast was removed. That square holes were found in waterproof asphalt membrane. And it was belived that the holes date back to the building of the viaduct.

 

[Senex]

Interesting aside, as dual-qualified surveyor and civil engineer specialising in historic buildings, I have sharp views about rubble infill to stone walls. Suffice to say, the reported lack of a rubble infill to Newcastle's High Level Bridge enhances, in my opinion, the reputation of Robert Stephenson.

Is Stephenson supposed to have used solid masonry throughout on the High Level Bridge, and if so, was that his normal practice?

I always understood (at least for thick-wall structures with rubble infill in mediæval buildings, that it all depended on how well the infill was done—if the stone was carefully packed in, and all the gaps filled with mortar, then it was fine and made its contribution to the strength of the wall, but at the other extreme, if it wasn't well packed, then the strength of the wall really depended only on its inner and outer ashlar faces, with the total thickness not doing too much at all.

 

[randyrippley]

I was going to make the same point "Was it actually designed?"
However you could also say the same thing about many highway bridges going back to Roman times.
I think a lot of "Rule of Thumb" Construction has taken place in the past.

You do the builders a disservice.
A structure like that would have been engineered, not designed - and it would have been overengineered in the knowledge that locos were getting heavier and trains longer.
I've also read somewhere that the builders of the S&C supposedly realised the Midland small engine policy was a nonsense and constructed accordingly. Sorry, can't post a link to justify that, forgot where I read it

 

[randyrippley]

Was it the construction, or was it that a waterproof layer hadn't been properly maintained? "Masonry skin filled with rubble" sounds just like the thick-wall construction of mediaeval castles and cathedrals, where the space between two ashlar faces is filled with rubble masonry packed tight and set in mortar. Many of those buildings seem to have survived quite well for rather longer than the S&C viaducts have been up. Or is it really just a case of jerry-building on Batty Moss Viaduct?

In the local press at the time the reporting was very much of the view that the waterproofing had been (deliberately) overlooked with a view to the viaduct deteriorating so it could be condemned. How much of that was hyperbole I have no idea, but the locals believed it.
Certainly the stated public "facts" were that incipient masonry failure was due to failed trackbed waterproofing.
As ever though, press stories are just that - stories

 

[randyrippley]

.............Interesting aside, as dual-qualified surveyor and civil engineer specialising in historic buildings, I have sharp views about rubble infill to stone walls. Suffice to say, the reported lack of a rubble infill to Newcastle's High Level Bridge enhances, in my opinion, the reputation of Robert Stephenson.

Don't make the mistake of assuming rubble filled walls are all primarily load bearing. In old castles the ungrouted rubble was there to absorb the impact from cannon shot - a loose infill would be better than a rigid fully grouted one

 

[EveningStar]

Source of information concerning the High Level Bridge is the excellent book by Addyman and Fawcett. They emphatically state that the piers are hollow primarily to save weight and to assist with drying of the lime mortar. Having seen too many spreading stone walls, especially where there are insufficient through-stones, or some structural movement has broken the through-stones, I am leery of rubble infill and the extra load it places on the structure. And grouting tends to mess up the ability of a wall to 'breathe', so increasing the risk of damp. Hence my comment about the rightness of Stephenson's design for the High Level Bridge.

Generally, until the late 19th Century most masonry design was relatively empirical, so less deliberately over engineered and more the engineering had a massive amount of contingency ... as evidence by the research papers I read when the question came up. That said, the demands of railway construction seems to the one of the major influences in developing engineering led structural design. This was learning in some cases from notable failures, including the failure of Stephenson's Dee Bridge of the same era as the High Level Bridge, so even the best struggled at times with applying new materials or developing existing materials to the demands of railway building.

Never surveyed a castle, although obviously when visiting one I always look with a professional eye ... what with buildings and trains, the family find me most frustrating!

 

[56131 EllColl]

And

I'm not sure it's holding the route back that much. Tunbridge Wells Central - Bo-Peep junction has a much more intensive service with four short sections of single track through tunnels.

Usan south of Montrose on Aberdeen mainline.

 

[edwin_m]

One section of single track can often be got round by timetabling - you plan for trains not to pass anywhere near it. Of course there may be other constraints that make that impossible.

As well as Usan-Montrose, the Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen timetables have to take account of the single line section east of Perth and the effective single line on the Tay Bridge, and they're rather more frequent as well. Sometimes you find that timetabling to avoid conflicts in one place just moves them to another that's equally difficult to deal with.

 

[tonysk14]

One section of single track can often be got round by timetabling - you plan for trains not to pass anywhere near it. Of course there may be other constraints that make that impossible.

As well as Usan-Montrose, the Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen timetables have to take account of the single line section east of Perth and the effective single line on the Tay Bridge, and they're rather more frequent as well. Sometimes you find that timetabling to avoid conflicts in one place just moves them to another that's equally difficult to deal with.

Sorry, why is the Tay Bridge effectively single line?

 

[edwin_m]

Sorry, why is the Tay Bridge effectively single line?

There is a weight restriction so trains can't use it in both directions at the same time.