Great Western Coffee Shop

Nobody seems to have picked up on the following item in the current copy of Modern Railways:

Network Rail is progressing well with the work to gauge enhance the Southampton to West Midlands line to enable 9ft 6in containers, and work has also started on studying a diversionary route to the same gauge. Some of the primary route, Reading to Didcot, coincides with the recently announced Great Western electrification, which also needs a higher gauge, so NR is seeking to deal with bridges on this section in one pass for both projects. All was going well until NR informed West Berkshire District Council that it intended to rebuild a bridge near Pangbourne under permitted development rights. Nothing surprising about this; the bridge is one of a dozen or so originally built by Brunel and extended for the four tracking. But West Berks DC had other ideas; the council got the bridge listed under a fast track procedure without anyone knowing.
So now, instead of one weekend possession to demolish the bridge, it will need all four tracks to be lowered by around 60cm over some distance, rebuilding the track drainage and signalling cabling, strengthening the bridge foundations, all over many hundred of metres, and estimated to need 10 full weekend possessions of all four tracks and probably millions of pounds of extra costs, money which could have been used for other purposes.
So we hope that the electors of West Berkshire who use the train services will welcome being in buses for 10 consecutive weekends and that FGW passengers between Reading and Oxford, Bristol, Cardiff and all places in between will, whilst sitting on their rail replacement bus services, remember to blame West Berkshire District Council and not Network Rail (or freight!) for the inconvenience to their journeys.
Its nice to see our taxpayers cash being wisely spent......

I certainly hadn't. Does anyone know this bridge? Is it really worth listing.

Is there an appeal process for Network Rail? It seems ludicrous that a local authority can do this without a reasonable degree of consultation.

Are you sure about this.  When are these closures to happen.

Taken from English Heritage Listed Buildings Register.....

Listed Buildings Online  |  | 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Name:  Railway Underbridge At Su 6336 7663
Parish:  Pangbourne
District:  West Berkshire
County:  Berkshire
Postcode:   
 LBS Number:  399218
Grade:  II
   
National Grid Reference:  SU6336076630
 
Listing Text:

SU 6376 PANGBOURNE STATION ROAD

6/3
Railway Underbridge
At SU 6336 7663

G.V. II

Railway underbridge. Circa 1840, by I.K. Brunel. Red brick with string course,
parapet,and slightly projecting battered abutments. 3 chamfered skew arches.
Central vehicular arch flanked by smaller pedestrian arches. This is one of
the original bridges built for the Great Western Railway.


Listing NGR: SU6336076630
 

Hang on it says they've listed an underbridge central vehicle arch and two pedestrian arches.
why does it need rebuilding?

You wait. This is only the start of it. The line between Chippenham and Brizzle is the original Brunel two track jobbie with nearly all the original features intact. English Heritage and the local councils are going to have an absolute field day adding in cost to the Airport Jn - Bristol electrification scheme, possibly affecting its overall viability.....

You read it here first. Lets see who called correctly in 5 years time.  ;D

I agree with that. Lots of historic structures to potentially cause delays and escalated costs!

The issue has now been commented upon on the UK Rail forum and hopefully this link will identify the actual bridge and the background information......


http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/30dcf4daee1a2423#

There are four bridges over the line at Purley-On-Thames, near Pangbourne. All of which are located closely to each other. At least one has a very tight clearance height wise - indeed a very restrictive speed limit of 20mph for freight trains had to be enforced a couple of years ago which I'm pretty sure was due to clearance issues. I think that is the bridge that is being referred to?

All four structures were initially built for the two-track broad gauge railway before having an extra arch added for the relief lines. You can see the different colour of brick and the differing width of the arches if you look closely. The bridge in question certainly isn't unique in that respect as there are several others between Reading and Didcot like it, though most of them have plenty of clearance as the cutting they bridge is deeper.

Look what happenend when the East london line was closed a few years ago EH got in the way and it closed for months more than planned.

I agree that certain things need to be retained, but at what cost? IF this is so important why do they not pay the extra to keep it- that what angers me. As for west berks- well if this causes others to do the same and it stops the project then that will really be a shot in the foot.

Note- as part of the Reading rebuilding the the lest wing of he old booking hall is getting the chop like the right one did at the last rebuild Grade 2 listed. Rather that than no new station!!

English Heritage and the various councils do not see an essential and evolving transport system when they look at the GWML, what they see is a wonderfull selection of Brunellian 'Gloomy Gothic' style bridges and other sundry bits of architecture with the occasional HST or unit trundling past. The idea that one should want to increase clearances to run W10 container trains or despoil the whole thing with electric string (to provide a more environment friendly train service) will be completely lost on them as they seek to preserve without alteration Brunels GWR. English Heritage isn't about improving your railway, its about preserving the country in aspic for ever more.

Believe me this story will run and run. It started some time back when the disused and unloved Dawlish Signalbox was 'fast track' listed, leaving Network Rail with yet another disused structure to maintain in a condition where it doesn't drop onto the track. Utterly pointless and a complete waste of scarce resources.   

I gather that the listing was largely at the behest of a resident in a house on the lane which passes over the bridge who didn't want to take the long way round while the work was going on, so invoked the name of the great engineer and got everyone in a flutter. No-one made a fuss about the others in the immediate area, so they haven't been listed.

Yes, I started it over there to try & get definitive ID on the bridge in question....

http://www.purleyonthames.net/news.php?news_id=87

and this is the link to the parish council which first asked for it to be listed. One of the reasons given is because of the inconvenience to some local residents whilst the work is being carried out - surelyy that's not a reason to list a building.

Of course, elsewhere on their site is a contact address, which might be a place to express one's displeasure at the inconvenience to the thousands af rail travellers who will see their journeys disrupted for many weekends whilst the work is being carried out.

And their clock (in the top right hand corner) is still on BST....!!

Is this issue on the same stretch of line? 

Seems to be a bit of an irritation to Network Rail anyway...


http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/13/46589-bridge-verdict-top-of-list-for-new-government/ (http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/13/46589-bridge-verdict-top-of-list-for-new-government/)

Paul

The Pangbourne/Purley bridge has previously been discussed on the site here http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5783.0

Ah thanks 'willc', I didn't find that at a quick scan through.  Perhaps a mod could shove my post above into that thread for completeness?

Paul

Thanks, Paul and willc: I've moved your posts into this topic, as requested, in the interests of continuity and clarity!

Chris.  ;)

Ah right, this would be why my journey from Evesham to Paddington tomorrow morning has a replacement bus between Oxford and Didcot. Entirely my fault I suppose for not keeping abreast of local engineering developments.

Unlikely, as Pangbourne is between Didcot and Reading, which is most definitely not shut tomorrow.

There was an article in a Reading local that NR have given up on this bridge & are going to drop the tracks instead....they can't wait any longer!

Means more closures / work apparently, that replacing the bridge...

Better news now it seems as this just in from the Reading Chronicle:

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/08/12/47926-upgrade-is-back-on-track-after-bridge-decision/ (http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/08/12/47926-upgrade-is-back-on-track-after-bridge-decision/)

This was after NR stepped up the heat back in May prompting these articles from the same source (the second of which is the article that ChrisB referred to above, and the other was linked to by paul7755 earlier in the thread):

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/13/46589-bridge-verdict-top-of-list-for-new-government (http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/13/46589-bridge-verdict-top-of-list-for-new-government)

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/20/46732-plan-b-on-westbury-bridge-demolition (http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/20/46732-plan-b-on-westbury-bridge-demolition)

Not sure whether there's any further appeal process or other ways for those against the demolition to delay it further, but let's hope NR can get on with replacing it and those that want to admire Brunel's architecture in the Purley area can observe the other three similar (higher) bridges within half a mile of this one!

I wonder if the heritage lobby might sit down and discuss what Brunel would have done, if confronted with this problem. 

I reckon being an engineer he'd have been well chuffed with the availabilty of pre stressed concrete and prefabricated sections.  Oh and I think he'd be amazed at the availability of mobile cranes big enough to do the job without closing the railway for more than a couple of days...

Paul

I think he would be there sitting in the driving seat of the 360 smashing the bridge to bits, he was an innovative engineer some would say he had scant regard for the environment and heritage he pushed his railway through

Indeed, has anyone seen the Time Team episode where they find the remains of a large Roman settlement and concluded that the major part of the remains of the structure was smashed to bits to build the GWML?  Only a couple of miles away from the site of this bridge funnily enough!  That certainly wouldn't happen today.

Thanks, IndustryInsider!

For those who haven't seen that particular Time Team episode - it's available here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-AZtMW0Ov0):


 ::)

Not really. Could seek judicial review but English Heritage won't want to upset the Government, the district and parish councils won't have the money and a judge would chuck it out anyway as the correct procedures have been followed by the DCMS. I really think English Heritage needs to take a more realistic view of things. If they want an example of Brunel's skills and, er, Victorian brickwork, then it would be hard to do better than Maidenhead bridge, which is, of course, listed. And before anyone says what about any future electrification, there are already wires over listed viaducts at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Berwick-upon-Tweed and Stockport, to name but three.

West Berkshire's use of spot listing powers - without consulting Network Rail - in the Purley case was extremely dubious, since the procedure is meant to be used to save unusual structures at imminent risk, and was always likely to be overturned when challenged, given there are many more variations of this standard Brunel bridge design in daily use elsewhere.

I was reminded of this old thread about bridge re-building because I was on a XC service on Monday that went under at least one brick arch bridge between Didcot and Reading which seemed to be in the middle of a major building site, with a temporary overbridge alongside it.  I thought it was probably the one under discussion here?

Then this week's Rail magazine reported that gauge clearance on the route between Southampton and the Midlands is finished, and trains are running with larger containers on normal wagons.

So if the clearance work really is still ongoing, how can the W10 traffic be running already? 

 ??? ???

Paul

Was it close to Reading? Work continues on its redeveloment. This includes a fly-under and assoviated works west of Reading.

No, nothing to do with the Reading works - I'm not that familiar with the lie of the land, but it would be well west of the Reading area. Two separate brick arches over the mains and reliefs - but anyone who passes that way regularly ought to be able to picture the temporary bridge, which is on the Reading side of the bridge being worked on - another visual cue might be the stacked gabions (those wire mesh cages full of stone) supporting the temporary embankments.

PS - the major works for the flyovers at Reading West Jn aren't even due to start until after the station is done, Chris...

Paul

Simple really - because the new bridge spans are in place, or the old ones are removed at least, so the required headroom is available for trains carrying 9ft 6in boxes on standard flat wagons. The work going on at present is mainly finishing off and reinstating roads, mains pipes, telecom ducts, etc, etc. I know two bridge sites still being worked on are the Old Abingdon Road in Oxford (to reopen to road traffic by the end of the month) and near the Leatherne Bottel restaurant, between South Stoke and Goring. Could be others nearer Reading as well.

To clarify this - the bridge I'm talking about doesn't look as though it's had the original arches removed, they are still the brick they've always been.

This site isn't comparable with others (like the one in Oxford still ongoing) where they've removed the main part of the bridge back to the springing points (the verticals), and reinstated them with massive concrete prefabricated sections - it is still a pair of brick arches.

Unless it has been rebuilt in the original brick?

Between South Stoke and Goring seems about the right area by the way, looking at the map.

Paul

The other option, which has been adopted by Network Rail where it was possible, was to lower the level of the track under the bridges. Given that the hi-cube trains are running under this bridge suggests that was the case here.

I thought that was a possible explanation, but it wouldn't explain why they went to all the bother of a temporary bridge alongside, with some pretty expensive looking earthworks? 

Paul

Does this gauge clearance work give any advantage to passenger services?  I don't suppose the extra height is enough to make double deckers viable or anything like that but as more of the network is cleared for these high cube containers will we ever see more spacious passenger saloons as a result (or more space on the roof for aircon etc allowing the floors to be lower)?

I find it slightly strange as well, given that the bridge near South Stoke is still in situ.  There's been a temporary bridge installed there for a couple of months now, but no major work undertaken on the old bridge visible and the spans are very much still there.  No sign of any track work either and it looks pretty certain to me that the old bridge is destined to come down.  Track has been replaced/lowered on the bridge between Pangbourne and Tilehurst in the down direction though.

Perhaps it's just the main lines that have been authorised - pending final works on the reliefs, as the arches are higher over those as they used to span broad gauge track?

W10 doesn't give really give any significant extra height for passenger vehicles, IIRC it's mostly about clearing the top corners of 'boxes'. (In comparison to the more rounded lines of carriages or MU vehicles, IYSWIM.)  Much of the gauge clearance work for W10 involves getting rid of arches, but the replacement beams or slabs are not usually much higher than the crown of the original arch.

I'll see if I can find a drawing later...

Paul

Diagram here http://www.btinternet.com/~joyce.whitchurch/gauges/text.htm

Thanks for looking that out willc, saved me doing it. 

What I'd add is that Network Rail consider that C1 and C3 coaching stock has a nominal height of 3.774m, which is within only a few inches cm of W10. 

Edit:  never mix units, as my science teacher once said...

Paul

Thanks for the explanation. 

Did some digging on this, as it's been niggling away...   ::)

There are two planning applications on South Oxford's website:

http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P10/W1340&TYPE=Application

P10/W1340 - approved on 14 Sep 2010

and http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P10/W1833&TYPE=Application

P10/W1833 - approved on 21 Dec 2010 - apparently following minor changes at NR's request.

Still can't find anything online that mentions any external reasons for the apparent delay, it could be that with an original track possession date missed, there's an inherent delay to re-book it, or perhaps there's no heavy lift capacity available?

However some detailed drawings amongst the online applications do confirm that the existing 'main line' arch has significantly more clearance than the relief arch, basically due to its extra width - so that seems to be the likeliest answer to how they've started running hi-cube services.  Modern Railways has also now reported the 'project completion'... 

Paul

I'm pretty sure I've seen some hi-cube's running on the Relief lines as well in the last few weeks though.  After I made that initial suggestion, I also thought about the consequences of the driver/signaller forgetting and thought that for safety reasons alone such a restriction would be unlikely to be authorised?  Still, there's no speed restrictions and the original spans remain in place, so it is a bit of a mystery!  I then thought that it might just be an unrelated bridge replacement and just coincidental, but Paul's links clearly state W10 as the reason.

Regarding the other bridge, which this thread originally refers to between Pangbourne and Tilehurst, I remember NR moaning that a decision on demolition had to be made in a certain amount of time, or there would be costly and disruptive alterations to the height of the track needed instead, so perhaps the decision wasn't taken in time.  But it seems the costly and disruptive alterations only amounted to one track being lowered over a couple of weekends (when other relief line work was also undertaken if I remember rightly) and so you then have to question whether NR was right to press for demolition of the bridge with that being the case?

Details on the scheme to provide a diversionary route from Southampton should the main route via Winchester not be available.

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/construction-news/network-rail-announced-plans-for-rail-route-upgrade (http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/construction-news/network-rail-announced-plans-for-rail-route-upgrade)

The updated CP4 enhancement plan has a detailed list of all the structures on the route, presumably because these are NR funded works. 

The work required for the main route was never really mentioned in detail, perhaps because it wasn't really an NR funded package, ie it was outside the HLOS? 

Edit:  The NR press release also has more info, with details of public road closures and dates of some fairly lengthy periods of weekend engineering work:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Press-Releases/PLANS-ANNOUNCED-FOR-SECOND-RAIL-FREIGHT-UPGRADE-FROM-SOUTHAMPTON-176a/SearchCategoryID-8.aspx

Paul