Steventon Bridge is falling down?

[mr_jrt]

If the bridge ends up rebuilt, is it likely to be done so with provision for four tracks through it? Even if you didn't extend the four track section immediately, it would seem prudent given it's the only major obstacle (a couple of level crossings notwithstanding) to joining up the existing section from Didcot to the existing Challow loops.

 

[zwk500]

If the bridge ends up rebuilt, is it likely to be done so with provision for four tracks through it? Even if you didn't extend the four track section immediately, it would seem prudent given it's the only major obstacle (a couple of level crossings notwithstanding) to joining up the existing section from Didcot to the existing Challow loops.

If its rebuilt by the council, it will almost certainly be built for the current width. Is there a plan to 4-track this section? The GWML is busy but not critically overloaded at this point o think?

 

[davetheguard]

Listing appears to have been done as it is thought to be the original bridge, seems the Parish Council like to preserve things and aren't a fan of electrification.

I don't think many of the people in Steventon jumping up & down and making a big noise at the time cared a hoot about the bridge - as has been said in this thread, it is nothing special.

The real reason was people didn't want to lose their easy road access to the nearby A34 while the bridge was being rebuilt. Ironically, a few years on. it now looks like it may have to be done anyway, but at far greater cost as a result of the locals' NIMBYism.

 

[Falcon1200]

Listing appears to have been done as it is thought to be the original bridge, seems the Parish Council like to preserve things and aren't a fan of electrification.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52425866

'The electrification project that led to decimation of our countryside and national heritage'; If that is their opinion of the wiring of the GWML (which of course led to the replacement of dirty diesel trains by clean electrics) one wonder what the good burghers (not sure I've spelt that right) of Steventon think of the nearby A34 which cuts a swathe through the countryside not far from their chocolate-box village ? The sooner this undistinguished and knackered old bridge is replaced the better.

 

[Backroom_boy]

I don't think many of the people in Steventon jumping up & down and making a big noise at the time cared a hoot about the bridge - as has been said in this thread, it is nothing special.

The real reason was people didn't want to lose their easy road access to the nearby A34 while the bridge was being rebuilt. Ironically, a few years on. it now looks like it may have to be done anyway, but at far greater cost as a result of the locals' NIMBYism.

Yes, this! Saving the listed structure was the stated objection but the motivation was much more the loss of access.

 

[hwl]

I don't think many of the people in Steventon jumping up & down and making a big noise at the time cared a hoot about the bridge - as has been said in this thread, it is nothing special.

The real reason was people didn't want to lose their easy road access to the nearby A34 while the bridge was being rebuilt. Ironically, a few years on. it now looks like it may have to be done anyway, but at far greater cost as a result of the locals' NIMBYism.

The reality is that the OCC engineers will want to take look underneath first, in the hope they find something obvious, they will probably not find anything definitive and will then realise that they need to dig up the road to investigate resulting in lengthy temporary closure. There will then be some pondering of repair options which will be far cheaper than replacement but some elements are likely to need HE approval taking time. Repair will take place with long road closure. A similar problem with then occur on the south side in few years time... with the total repair closure time longer than the rebuild option.

It is worth noting that there has been a high turnover of OCC and VoWHDC councillors since the original saga.
A new housing estate has also recently been built in the village adding 100 houses.

 

[The Planner]

If the bridge ends up rebuilt, is it likely to be done so with provision for four tracks through it? Even if you didn't extend the four track section immediately, it would seem prudent given it's the only major obstacle (a couple of level crossings notwithstanding) to joining up the existing section from Didcot to the existing Challow loops.

Unless its stated in a previous RUS or route study that it needs to be done by the 2040s then unlikely.

 

[paul1609]

Surely if it is a bridge built to maintain a roadway or right of way when the railway was constructed (as suggested by its listing) Network Rail have any liability for its maintenance or repair?

 

[swt_passenger]

'The electrification project that led to decimation of our countryside and national heritage'; If that is their opinion of the wiring of the GWML (which of course led to the replacement of dirty diesel trains by clean electrics) one wonder what the good burghers (not sure I've spelt that right) of Steventon think of the nearby A34 which cuts a swathe through the countryside not far from their chocolate-box village ? The sooner this undistinguished and knackered old bridge is replaced the better.

I expect as the single carriageway A34 went over the bridge we‘re discussing they were chuffed to bits with the bypass. But the 70s/80s were different times altogether…

 

[Cantab26]

Surely if it is a bridge built to maintain a roadway or right of way when the railway was constructed (as suggested by its listing) Network Rail have any liability for its maintenance or repair?

Not necessarily. The liability to repair falls upon the bridge authority, which is apparently the County Council in this case.

 

[76020]

I remember this saga very well, I could not help but laugh when I saw this yesterday, this is a classic case of getting away with something and then it comes back to bit you. At the time the locals even suggested installing 3rd Rail Electrification for just going under the bridge. There were meetings between the local authority and Network Rail and in the end a lot of tax payers money was wasted, now it looks like the bridge may well have to go after all, I would make the local parish and their mates who stopped the bridge rebuild in the first place pay for it.
I have found this link from 2018, Happy New Year everybody especially if you live in Steventon
Network Rail electrification plans stalled after council rejects bridge removal bid (railtechnologymagazine.com)

 

[paul1609]

Not necessarily. The liability to repair falls upon the bridge authority, which is apparently the County Council in this case.

If the bridge authority is the County Council I don't think they are normally liable for any rail industry internal compensation.

 

[mr_jrt]

If its rebuilt by the council, it will almost certainly be built for the current width. Is there a plan to 4-track this section? The GWML is busy but not critically overloaded at this point o think?

Unless its stated in a previous RUS or route study that it needs to be done by the 2040s then unlikely.

I've seen a few mentions over the years, I think one was for the 2040s, actually, but even without those given the lifetime of a bridge it seems madness to build a new one with a 30-year lifespan? Surely a wider one wouldn't cost that much more and could last for the next 60-100 years?

 

[zwk500]

I've seen a few mentions over the years, I think one was for the 2040s, actually, but even without those given the lifetime of a bridge it seems madness to build a new one with a 30-year lifespan? Surely a wider one wouldn't cost that much more and could last for the next 60-100 years?

4-tracking through to Wantage road will involve demolition of several houses through Steventon and closure, bridging or upgrade of 2 level crossings. Building a new bridge twice as wide as the old one means the road must be upgraded to current standards of width, gradient and sightlines. If you replace the bridge like-for-like you can leave the road substandard. The cost difference between these 2 options is vast. Therefore, as a public body, OCC will want to avoid unnecessary costs.

If the bridge authority is the County Council I don't think they are normally liable for any rail industry internal compensation.

I'm fairly sure that if the bridge authority requires access to the railway to carry out work it will be liable for all of NR's additional costs, which include compensation to operators for closing the line. Funadmentally, NR didn't intend to close the line and will be financially worse off for having done so. Why should it pay for OCC's failure? Happy to be corrected on that though.

 

[The Planner]

If the bridge authority is the County Council I don't think they are normally liable for any rail industry internal compensation.

Not sure about that, third parties normally get charged Schedule 4 compensation if they are the party causing the disruption.

 

[Cantab26]

If the bridge authority is the County Council I don't think they are normally liable for any rail industry internal compensation.

Not sure about that, third parties normally get charged Schedule 4 compensation if they are the party causing the disruption.

It’s all very messy. The county council might not be liable to pay compensation for works undertaken in its ‘highway authority’ capacity to the extent that it is acting under specific statutory authority, but that doesn’t necessarily exclude liability for works carried out in its ‘bridge authority’ capacity as owner of the bridge itself!

Some fairly extensive archival research would be needed to establish the exact position.

 

[jimm]

4-tracking through to Wantage road will involve demolition of several houses through Steventon and closure, bridging or upgrade of 2 level crossings. Building a new bridge twice as wide as the old one means the road must be upgraded to current standards of width, gradient and sightlines. If you replace the bridge like-for-like you can leave the road substandard. The cost difference between these 2 options is vast. Therefore, as a public body, OCC will want to avoid unnecessary costs.

I'm fairly sure that if the bridge authority requires access to the railway to carry out work it will be liable for all of NR's additional costs, which include compensation to operators for closing the line. Funadmentally, NR didn't intend to close the line and will be financially worse off for having done so. Why should it pay for OCC's failure? Happy to be corrected on that though.

What do you mean by 'Oxfordshire County Council's failure'? How exactly has the council failed?

The decision to refuse listed building consent for demolition of the bridge was made by members of Vale of White Horse District Council, as it is the local planning authority, not the county council. It was a democratic process, whether or not people like the decision.

I expect that if it comes to it, Network Rail will be asked by the county council to engage specialist contractors to carry out the demolition and replacement of the bridge using the plans that were prepared some years back, and that it will be possible to achieve most of this in weekend possessions. As it happens, this month would have been a good one, as the line is closed between Didcot and Swindon for the next four weekends for track renewals in the Swindon area.

An old Brunel-designed twin-track overbridge across the fields from my home was knocked down in the early hours on a Saturday, with the rubble cleared, the existing abutments reconstructed and new pre-cast concrete deck and parapet sections lifted and fixed in place by Sunday evening, with the trains running again first thing on the Monday morning and the finishing touches then made to the bridge with no further impact on train services

Stevenson would likely be more complicated, given the gap to be bridged and the awkward location, with buildings close by, but if a single span is used, work on adapting or replacing the abutments would be taking place well back from the running lines, so should probably be able to proceed with trains still running.

But until the NR and county council engineers can take a close look at the whole structure - presumably during this month's possessions - and decide the best course of action, we will just have to wait and see.

Anyone interested in the historic structures along the GWML - and the route's overall design and development under Brunel and subsequently - may find this report commissioned by Network Rail in 2012 interesting. Off the back of it, English Heritage, now Historic England, listed many more structures.

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/history-significance-gwml/gwml-statement-history-significance/

Brunel's Great Western railway given preservation head of steam

English Heritage lists or upgrades status of dozens of bridges, tunnels and other structures along 'God's wonderful railway'

www.theguardian.com

 

[Cantab26]

What do you mean by 'Oxfordshire County Council's failure'? How exactly has the council failed?

It has failed to maintain the bridge.

Perhaps the county council should apply for listed building consent to demolish it and, if that is refused, serve a purchase notice on the district council.

As I said earlier, very messy situation.

 

[jimm]

It has failed to maintain the bridge.

Perhaps the county council should apply for listed building consent to demolish it and, if that is refused, serve a purchase notice on the district council.

As I said earlier, very messy situation.

Has it? How do you know?

There could be all sorts of reasons for there being problems. Someone must have inspected the bridge to identify there may be something wrong and as a result the council is taking precautions until it can get access to carry out a full assessment - which hardly suggests it is neglecting its duties.

Are you going to start accusing Network Rail of neglecting its duties for imposing temporary speed restrictions when it identifies issues with track or bridges it owns until it can make a full inspection and take action?

How the county council can serve a purchase notice for a structure it already owns, I have no idea. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

 

[zwk500]

What do you mean by 'Oxfordshire County Council's failure'? How exactly has the council failed?

It hasn't maintained the bridge to a point where there is a risk of failure. If NR implemented emergency single-train working over a bridge I'd also say it had failed in the duty to maintain the infrastructure but met it's duty to safety.

The decision to refuse listed building consent for demolition of the bridge was made by members of Vale of White Horse District Council, as it is the local planning authority, not the county council. It was a democratic process, whether or not people like the decision.

'Democratic' is a wonderfully vague phrase in this. The money that will be required for this will come from Westminster, not VoWHDC, and therefore 99% of those who are paying for this act of NIMBYism couldn't hold the people who have thrown the money away to account. Had VoWHDC allowed demolition as part of the GWML project, the costs of the bridge replacement would have been subject to all the controls and transparency that NR is.

I expect that if it comes to it, Network Rail will be asked by the county council to engage specialist contractors to carry out the demolition and replacement of the bridge using the plans that were prepared some years back, and that it will be possible to achieve most of this in weekend possessions. As it happens, this month would have been a good one, as the line is closed between Didcot and Swindon for the next four weekends for track renewals in the Swindon area.

The specialist contractors are unlikely to be sitting on their backsides waiting for a phone call. They will have moved on to another job, and it will cost a fortune to get them in at short notice (assuming they can even respond in time). And getting extra access to an agreed block is very difficult, as there's issues like Signaller workload to consider as well as conflicting worksites. There's a reason these things are planned carefully some time in advance.

An old Brunel-designed twin-track overbridge across the fields from my home was knocked down in the early hours on a Saturday, with the rubble cleared, the existing abutments reconstructed and new pre-cast concrete deck and parapet sections lifted and fixed in place by Sunday evening, with the trains running again first thing on the Monday morning and the finishing touches then made to the bridge with no further impact on train services

And all done with months of preparatory work and planning to make sure every person and every thing was there ready to start on time, with a place to go and a plan to work to. Including making sure every single thing that wasn't meant to be near the site (including trains) came nowhere near.

Stevenson would likely be more complicated, given the gap to be bridged and the awkward location, with buildings close by, but if a single span is used, work on adapting or replacing the abutments would be taking place well back from the running lines, so should probably be able to proceed with trains still running.

If the abutments are within the railway boundary, I'm not sure this would still be permitted given Red Zone working has been all but banned on the Western route. Somebody more up to date with the operational details will need to confirm that.

 

[alxndr]

If the abutments are within the railway boundary, I'm not sure this would still be permitted given Red Zone working has been all but banned on the Western route. Somebody more up to date with the operational details will need to confirm that.

If work was to take place over 2m/6’ 6” from the nearest running line then it would be classed as separated green zone and not red zone. This would be permitted. More realistically they’d probably use a fenced green zone as this is slightly safer, and would also happen to reduce the distance necessary to 1.25m/4’.

 

[zwk500]

If work was to take place over 2m/6’ 6” from the nearest running line then it would be classed as separated green zone and not red zone. This would be permitted. More realistically they’d probably use a fenced green zone as this is slightly safer, and would also happen to reduce the distance necessary to 1.25m/4’.

Thanks!

 

[Meerkat]

Let's hope the bridge isn't found to be in such a condition that an emergency line closure is necessary.

If that happened could NR just knock it down pronto, or would they have to jump through loads of hoops first?
Knock it down and take out the abutments back far enough that they can be replaced without further blocks. Leave the road closed whilst the council sort out a replacement - "Well we did offer back then didnt we?!"
Bit surprised the council are liable - I assumed the railway was responsible for overbridges, especially ones built by their predecessors.

 

[InOban]

You can, with proper planning, carry out the works quite quick,y and with little disruption, provided there aren't services under the road. If there are, then will take several months.

 

[Cantab26]

How the county council can serve a purchase notice for a structure it already owns, I have no idea. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

The fact that the county council owns the bridge is the reason why it might be able to serve a purchase notice…on the district council.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2022 ==

There could be all sorts of reasons for there being problems. Someone must have inspected the bridge to identify there may be something wrong and as a result the council is taking precautions until it can get access to carry out a full assessment - which hardly suggests it is neglecting its duties.

Are you going to start accusing Network Rail of neglecting its duties for imposing temporary speed restrictions when it identifies issues with track or bridges it owns until it can make a full inspection and take action?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The key point is that, if the county council is the bridge authority, Network Rail is pretty much in the clear.

 

[jameshammond]

Steventon Bridge: Overcoming the Obstacle - Rail Engineer

Listen to this article In the complex story of the electrification of the Great Western main line, one name keeps cropping up – Steventon Bridge (issue 167, September 2018). This structure, and the problems it has caused, has been the subject of much media coverage, both technical and public...

www.railengineer.co.uk

Interesting article here about how they got it from 60mph to 110mph on electric

 

[Cantab26]

It was a democratic process, whether or not people like the decision.

'Democratic' is a wonderfully vague phrase in this.

Hence why I am always clear with clients (public and private sector) that planning is not (and should not be) treated as a ‘democratic’ decision.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2022 ==

If that happened could NR just knock it down pronto, or would they have to jump through loads of hoops first?

Yes and no. The fact that the bridge is listed and owned by the county council complicates matters somewhat.

Bit surprised the council are liable - I assumed the railway was responsible for overbridges, especially ones built by their predecessors.

It depends on the type of bridge and who constitutes the bridge authority. Very messy and complicated.

Good for lawyers like me…

 

[Spartacus]

Four tracking? Jeez, given how much the village green preservation society objected to the rebuilding of a bog standard bridge that nobody but the driver and guard in their back cab could fully appreciate on a daily basis, can you imagine what would happen if 4 tracking, and it's associated disruption, land take, demolishing of buildings, rebuilding of the level crossings and visual impact of 4 electrified lines was even suggested? All out war, in their genuine civil war re-enactment gear, no doubt!

We are the Village Green Preservation Society;
God save Donald Duck, Vaudeville and Variety;
We are the Desperate Dan Appreciation Society;
God save strawberry jam and all the different varieties!

 

[hwl]

Hence why I am always clear with clients (public and private sector) that planning is not (and should not be) treated as a ‘democratic’ decision.

And the VoWHDC planning committee members didn't agree with their professionals advice (agree to NR rebuild) last time!

 

[norbitonflyer]

The decision to refuse listed building consent for demolition of the bridge was made by members of Vale of White Horse District Council, as it is the local planning authority, not the county council. It was a democratic process, whether or not people like the decision.

As I have learned recently, councillors are heavily constrained in what they can refuse planning consent for, and the council can be sued by the developer if they get it wrong.