Friday 24 October 2014

A dual report today - progress on the bridges to Broadway, and also a look at some of our other bridges along the line. We don't often talk about those, but they are not forgotten. Indeed, as you will see, we keep a very close eye on them.

So, on Broadway, here's a look at work on the three bridges currently being worked on:

Bridge 2, Childswickham Road
Further to our report on Wednesday showing the fabricators at work, we have three more shots of the corrosion damage and measures being taken to address it:
This is a shot of where we have had to enlarge a corrosion hole through a girder end to remove piles of muck, corrosion and who knows what about 150mm thick. This simply helps keep the steel wet, so encouraging faster rot! It has to be removed, and be replaced with proper drainage and access.
Corrosion of a main girder end




And finally, a very tricky repair to a track bearer end (Broadway side), including (just visible) the replacement of a section of the bottom flange plate. Not a lot left of our original bridge here...

Bridge 4, Peasebrook Farm

Here the concrete break out (it is weak concrete, and didn’t take much effort!) and removal is almost complete...
Exposing the troughing


Damage underneath the troughing - trains will have to rumble over this
... and a picture of the holes through the end – just to remind people why we are having to do this. The ends are the critical points where the weight of the trains is transferred onto the bearings, or not in the picture above! As reported earlier, a technical solution has been agreed, but no doubt at extra cost.

Bridge 5, Little Buckland

Below is a shot of the deck with the ballast boards all finished (before the off cuts & sawdust were cleared up of course). Unfortunately the gales on Tuesday severely displaced a lot of the neatly laid waterproofing protection mat. This will soon be straightened again, and covered with ballast.
In the picture, we are looking south. 800yds away is the railhead at Laverton :-)

Now, as they say on TV, ' in other news tonight'.....

Bridges 32 (Prescott Road) and Bridge 34 (our largest, Gotherington skew bridge)

Another activity on Bridges is the need to carry out inspections. We aim to try and inspect all major structures and as many minor (mainly culverts ) as we can, each year. This is done on a visual basis working from the ground or on the bridge, taking photos & writing reports.

In addition we then carry out Principal (detailed) Inspections, using the services of a Consulting Engineer, on a 6 year rolling programme basis. This involves hiring in a cherry picker so that we can see the critical areas on the tops of the abutments, where most corrosion arises. This happens due to the poor maintenance access availability, leading to heavy and extensive corrosion, which has created so many of the problems now being repaired on bridges 1 to 5.

Because of the narrow roads and the need for a cherry picker, we also have to provide traffic management, (lights, signs, cones, etc) to keep the operation safe for our men and the general public.

Below are shots of bridge 34 -Gotherington skew bridge (our largest) – note the lady assistant engineer, in yellow, and 32 – Prescott Road, almost our most hazardous. Both of these were done with traffic lights controlling a single lane system. Because of the safety distances required the lights are not visible in the photos.

We also did bridge 28 (Stanley Pontlarge) and in 10 days time will be doing a further 5, where access will be obtained from track level on our service road. Again a cherry picker will be involved.

Detailed reports will follow on the basis of which a priority list of repairs will be compiled - hopefully not too many.





Finally, here is a shot of one poor connection under the running line on bridge 34. It looks worse than it actually is because of the highly coloured corrosion.
Evil looking, but mostly surface corrosion (for now)
Money continues to dribble in on the share issue, but will it be enough to cover all the extra costs? Or even rails for the extension? One more week of the EIS scheme remains.

3 comments:

  1. Since you were complaining that you didn't get any comments, here's one :-) (well, actually, it's a question):

    Since the concrete has been removed entirely from the corrugated metal sheet, wouldn't it have been easier to simply replace it entirely, rather than undertake detailed repairs to the load-bearing end sections which are badly corroded? (I'm not sure I entirely understand the bottom illustration in the drawing provided a few weeks back, but I do see "Trough corrosion to be repaired where holed through .."; presumably most of the bending load in the middle of the span will be borne by the pseudo-I-beams to be sunk in the troughs, but the ends do have to be capable of transferring the loads into the piers on either side.) Or was suitable steel either not available on a timely basis, or even more expensive than repairs?

    You may have to pass this one off to John S again; if so, I hope he'll be able to produce another one of those wonderfully detailed answers!

    Thanks again for the wonderfully detailed blog!

    Noel

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Balderstone27 October 2014 at 16:34

    Thanks for your interest; the scheme has been modified slightly several times, to suit design criteria. The vast majority of the steel troughs are in extremely good condition, with the exception of the ends which vary from reasonable to heavily perforated. Therefore they can be used as permanent formwork whilst also retaining the original structure form. The entire deck is then to be concreted over, incorporating sheets of fabric reinforcement. The trough ends are now to be completely enclosed in concrete, with added re-bars to effectively form a completely new cill beam at each end. We are now only fitting minimal thickness plates, internally, and only over the holed sections of the troughs, simply to stop the concrete that we will be laying, from escaping. The twin channel beams give the main strength to the deck, but we have now added 10 bolts to the crown of each trough unit, to act as studs anchoring the thin upper deck concrete to the troughs to give a "composite" action. These bolts are installed by drilling holes vertically through the trough and the joint cover plates and inserting longer bolts which will also clamp the troughs and cover plates together.
    The design is really quite simple basically requiring the I beams, formed from back to back channels, to be encased in concrete to form a monolithic slab. The channels need minimum fabrication required - just bolts to clamp them together. Having said that I understand that there are a considerable number of factors that have had to be taken into account to get the proportions of new steel and concrete in balance to give the necessary structural strength.
    The new concrete will be laid to slight falls and will be completely waterproofed, ensuring that the water will run to the ends and drain down into the new end of deck drainage system, thus stopping water from lying on top and the risk of it soaking into the slab, in the event of damage to the waterproofing.

    I hope that this answers your queries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thanks for that very informative reply. The bit I had missed, studying the drawing, was that the repairs to the steel troughs were not intended to restore their original strength, merely to prevent the concrete escaping! With that made clear, the decision to retain the original troughs is now understood.

      I hope you all can produce the usual wonderful detailed photos of the whole thing being put together; it will be most interesting to compare the photos to what one visualizes, looking at the drawing.

      Thanks again for taking the time to give such a detailed and informative reply!

      Noel

      Delete