Historic Albury-Wodonga rail bridge facing chop or major upgrade to allow for inland rail

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 09 Nov 2017 11:06
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
The Wagga bridge was removed also. Does the Bathurst bridge carry utilities?
Yes the old Bathurst bridge does carry some utilities, but the new bridge has the required conduits to take these utilities.
Nightfire
Might be the only reason the bridge is still there.

Moving the services over from a still sound bridge to the new bridge would be at the cost of the service provider and may see no reason to spend the money until such a time the bridge needs more.

Sponsored advertisement

  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
I usually don't buy into heritage related matters but as has been mentioned in this forum there is already a very good quality and quite scenic cycleway between Wodonga and Albury which is very popular so that kind of rules out using the bridge for that purpose.   Similarly if this bridge was in a much,much more high profile location and very accessible and it was truly unique then again it may be worth preserving.   The bridge is none of these and who will pay for it's upkeep and keeping it safe for what purpose.
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Simple , build new double line double stack height bridge for trains and an extra height double lane cycle way on the side .
Covers all bases including Penny farthings .
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
Simple , build new double line double stack height bridge for trains and an extra height double lane cycle way on the side .
Covers all bases including Penny farthings .
BDA
Mmm, pedestrian path across a bridge built for 1800m long trains doing 100km/h. Yep I can see the ARTC running to the moon and back before allowing such an addition to their bridge design.
  tom9876543 Train Controller


2) If you look at the bridge/viaduct positions on both sides of the river in the lead up to the bridge, you will notice slewing the line and retaining a reasonable alignment for 100km/hr running is going to be costly as the southern approach bridges will need to be rebuilt and the viaduct on the north side would need to be demolished and rebuilt. (same applies fore putting the new bridge between the highway and old bridge).
RTT_Rules

RTT, do you have some evidence to support the claim a new bridge between existing railway bridge and freeway bridges can't support 100km/h?

I used freemaptools draw radius and that shows a 700m radius curve can be built from existing Wodonga bypass and curve back to go over Murray river between existing railway bridge and freeway bridge. My understanding is 700m curve is capable of 100km/h. I do not see any requirement to rebuild southern approach bridges.

The new bridge can be built with a brand new viaduct to the north running parallel with existing viaduct.

I am sure as hell not a civil engineer so happy to be proven wrong with evidence.

The existing Cudgewa rail trail should be extended all the way to Albury Olive St.
The rail trail would have to go under the new rail bridge just south of the Murray River rail bridge.
Who pays for maintenance of rail trails? I guess local councils do.

So IMHO best option is to preserve the old rail bridge and use it to extend Cudgewa rail trail to Albury.
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE

2) If you look at the bridge/viaduct positions on both sides of the river in the lead up to the bridge, you will notice slewing the line and retaining a reasonable alignment for 100km/hr running is going to be costly as the southern approach bridges will need to be rebuilt and the viaduct on the north side would need to be demolished and rebuilt. (same applies fore putting the new bridge between the highway and old bridge).
RTT, do you have some evidence to support the claim a new bridge between existing railway bridge and freeway bridges can't support 100km/h?

I used freemaptools draw radius and that shows a 700m radius curve can be built from existing Wodonga bypass and curve back to go over Murray river between existing railway bridge and freeway bridge. My understanding is 700m curve is capable of 100km/h. I do not see any requirement to rebuild southern approach bridges.

The new bridge can be built with a brand new viaduct to the north running parallel with existing viaduct.

I am sure as hell not a civil engineer so happy to be proven wrong with evidence.

The existing Cudgewa rail trail should be extended all the way to Albury Olive St.
The rail trail would have to go under the new rail bridge just south of the Murray River rail bridge.
Who pays for maintenance of rail trails? I guess local councils do.

So IMHO best option is to preserve the old rail bridge and use it to extend Cudgewa rail trail to Albury.
tom9876543
Hi Tony,
I don't. It was just my on interpretation considering its a dual track "S" curve you have to install and your probably right having done actual work so I'll take your word for it.

On the North side I will disagree with you. Why shy I, you and the rest of us here contribute to rebuilding something just because of an old bridge may want to be protected by some and most of the community don't care for? Potentially the cost of re-building the northern approach may exceed the cost of building a new stand alone bridge for the cycle way.

Some one said if its like the Wagga Bridge, the concrete support structures will be end of life, if this is the case then the bridge is in its last years and must go sooner or later. If the concrete support structures have another 25 years in them, then replace the deck with something more suitable and use the spans elsewhere.

Retaining the old alignment for a cycleway I think would be great and add to the community I'm sure. Just whats the best approach for both taxpayer and community?
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
Not to overstate the case which has pretty well been done to death, but building a new bridge needs to be done to overcome a bottleneck and optimise train operations through Albury and that shouldn't be compromised.   We are talking about a piece in the chain of a nationally important piece of infrastructure and that needs to be always top of mind.   Whatever the maximum speed can be coming off the double track bypass and then through Albury and up the hill to Tabletop should be whatever the alignment can provide not have an 80km/hr curve sitting at the bottom of a grade because we want to skirt around a redunant bridge.    

That's tantamount to recreating a new goat track along the east coast which is what the Inland Rail project is intended to remove!!!
  tom9876543 Train Controller


2) If you look at the bridge/viaduct positions on both sides of the river in the lead up to the bridge, you will notice slewing the line and retaining a reasonable alignment for 100km/hr running is going to be costly as the southern approach bridges will need to be rebuilt and the viaduct on the north side would need to be demolished and rebuilt. (same applies fore putting the new bridge between the highway and old bridge).
RTT, do you have some evidence to support the claim a new bridge between existing railway bridge and freeway bridges can't support 100km/h?

I used freemaptools draw radius and that shows a 700m radius curve can be built from existing Wodonga bypass and curve back to go over Murray river between existing railway bridge and freeway bridge. My understanding is 700m curve is capable of 100km/h. I do not see any requirement to rebuild southern approach bridges.

The new bridge can be built with a brand new viaduct to the north running parallel with existing viaduct.

I am sure as hell not a civil engineer so happy to be proven wrong with evidence.

The existing Cudgewa rail trail should be extended all the way to Albury Olive St.
The rail trail would have to go under the new rail bridge just south of the Murray River rail bridge.
Who pays for maintenance of rail trails? I guess local councils do.

So IMHO best option is to preserve the old rail bridge and use it to extend Cudgewa rail trail to Albury.Hi Tony,
I don't. It was just my on interpretation considering its a dual track "S" curve you have to install and your probably right having done actual work so I'll take your word for it.

On the North side I will disagree with you. Why shy I, you and the rest of us here contribute to rebuilding something just because of an old bridge may want to be protected by some and most of the community don't care for? Potentially the cost of re-building the northern approach may exceed the cost of building a new stand alone bridge for the cycle way.

Some one said if its like the Wagga Bridge, the concrete support structures will be end of life, if this is the case then the bridge is in its last years and must go sooner or later. If the concrete support structures have another 25 years in them, then replace the deck with something more suitable and use the spans elsewhere.

Retaining the old alignment for a cycleway I think would be great and add to the community I'm sure. Just whats the best approach for both taxpayer and community?
RTT_Rules

RTT,
Looks like you have made a few mistakes with your posts.

Agreed, building a new viaduct to the north is an extra cost.
I can think of one simple justification.
If new bridge and viaduct are built next to existing structure, the amount of time the railway is closed is minimised.
Does anyone know how long the railway was closed when they switched from old Wodonga line to the new bypass? Maybe 1 day or less?
That is much better than closing the line for weeks or months when removing old bridge and building new bridge on same alignment.
  Lockspike Chief Train Controller

Some one said if its like the Wagga Bridge, the concrete support structures will be end of life, if this is the case then the bridge is in its last years and must go sooner or later. If the concrete support structures have another 25 years in them, then replace the deck with something more suitable and use the spans elsewhere.
RTT_Rules
RTT, a small correction which does not substantially alter the meaning of your post.
The support structures (caissson piles) are iron, not concrete. Being iron they are old and brittle, and in the Wagga case, literally cracking.
  Lockspike Chief Train Controller

Some one said if its like the Wagga Bridge, the concrete support structures will be end of life, if this is the case then the bridge is in its last years and must go sooner or later. If the concrete support structures have another 25 years in them, then replace the deck with something more suitable and use the spans elsewhere.
RTT, a small correction which does not substantially alter the meaning of your post.
The support structures (caissson piles) are iron, not concrete. Being iron they are old and brittle, and in the Wagga case, literally cracking.
  7334 Chief Commissioner

Location: In the workshop wondering why I started 7334 in the first place
Some one said if its like the Wagga Bridge, the concrete support structures will be end of life, if this is the case then the bridge is in its last years and must go sooner or later. If the concrete support structures have another 25 years in them, then replace the deck with something more suitable and use the spans elsewhere.
RTT, a small correction which does not substantially alter the meaning of your post.
The support structures (caissson piles) are iron, not concrete. Being iron they are old and brittle, and in the Wagga case, literally cracking.
Lockspike
I would be very surprised if what is supporting the bridge is the iron tubes.

What seems more likely is that they were used as caissons in which case the tubes were sunk into the river bed until they reached firm support (rock??) then emptied and filled with concrete which then becomes the pier.  The iron tubes then become irrelevant and can quietly rust away below water level.

That was what happened with the Hawkesbury River bridges and the lack of concrete or the poor quality of what was used was a major factor in what ultimately doomed the original structure.

What does make me wonder however is that in the case of the Whitton Lattice Truss bridges the iron tubes continue right up to bridge level and are braced to one another.  That bracing is not there for the fun of it.

Continuing the tubes to bridge level may just have been a simpler way of constructing the above water piers in that it provided formwork for the concrete within and bracing for it.

I will now sit back and wait for someone to tell me the piers for the Hawkesbury bridges were stone and concrete respectively and there were no iron or steel tubes involved.  Think before you do.
  BDA Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
No you can't have fenced pathways next to dangerous trains doing 100 km/h .
But you can sit on platforms and have trains doing this and more a meter or two away .
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE

2) If you look at the bridge/viaduct positions on both sides of the river in the lead up to the bridge, you will notice slewing the line and retaining a reasonable alignment for 100km/hr running is going to be costly as the southern approach bridges will need to be rebuilt and the viaduct on the north side would need to be demolished and rebuilt. (same applies fore putting the new bridge between the highway and old bridge).
RTT, do you have some evidence to support the claim a new bridge between existing railway bridge and freeway bridges can't support 100km/h?

I used freemaptools draw radius and that shows a 700m radius curve can be built from existing Wodonga bypass and curve back to go over Murray river between existing railway bridge and freeway bridge. My understanding is 700m curve is capable of 100km/h. I do not see any requirement to rebuild southern approach bridges.

The new bridge can be built with a brand new viaduct to the north running parallel with existing viaduct.

I am sure as hell not a civil engineer so happy to be proven wrong with evidence.

The existing Cudgewa rail trail should be extended all the way to Albury Olive St.
The rail trail would have to go under the new rail bridge just south of the Murray River rail bridge.
Who pays for maintenance of rail trails? I guess local councils do.

So IMHO best option is to preserve the old rail bridge and use it to extend Cudgewa rail trail to Albury.Hi Tony,
I don't. It was just my on interpretation considering its a dual track "S" curve you have to install and your probably right having done actual work so I'll take your word for it.

On the North side I will disagree with you. Why shy I, you and the rest of us here contribute to rebuilding something just because of an old bridge may want to be protected by some and most of the community don't care for? Potentially the cost of re-building the northern approach may exceed the cost of building a new stand alone bridge for the cycle way.

Some one said if its like the Wagga Bridge, the concrete support structures will be end of life, if this is the case then the bridge is in its last years and must go sooner or later. If the concrete support structures have another 25 years in them, then replace the deck with something more suitable and use the spans elsewhere.

Retaining the old alignment for a cycleway I think would be great and add to the community I'm sure. Just whats the best approach for both taxpayer and community?
RTT,
Looks like you have made a few mistakes with your posts.

Agreed, building a new viaduct to the north is an extra cost.
I can think of one simple justification.
If new bridge and viaduct are built next to existing structure, the amount of time the railway is closed is minimised.
Does anyone know how long the railway was closed when they switched from old Wodonga line to the new bypass? Maybe 1 day or less?
That is much better than closing the line for weeks or months when removing old bridge and building new bridge on same alignment.
tom9876543
Time to slew the track over, probably less than a shift. If its just dragging track to side then this is quick, then place large speed restriction while the line junction is upgraded to standard over a day or two. Two tracks so you can work on one while the other is open.

Regarding bridge replacement
I'm going to say maybe disagree.  The Viaduct on north side would likely be messy unless you build a 100% replacement back to hard ground 500m north.

With regard to bridge, I've seen heard of bridges that were replaced by building new piers amongst the existing bridge while in operation, then a few days to remove old deck  and install a new pre-fab. I think someone said they did it for Wagga bridge. I've seen it done else for road as well. I'm sure the industry will absorb a weekend shutdown for this sort of thing.
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
No you can't have fenced pathways next to dangerous trains doing 100 km/h .
But you can sit on platforms and have trains doing this and more a meter or two away .
BDA
Its all about grandfather clauses and legacy. The platform also provides some level of physical barrier.
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
Some one said if its like the Wagga Bridge, the concrete support structures will be end of life, if this is the case then the bridge is in its last years and must go sooner or later. If the concrete support structures have another 25 years in them, then replace the deck with something more suitable and use the spans elsewhere.
RTT, a small correction which does not substantially alter the meaning of your post.
The support structures (caissson piles) are iron, not concrete. Being iron they are old and brittle, and in the Wagga case, literally cracking.
I would be very surprised if what is supporting the bridge is the iron tubes.

What seems more likely is that they were used as caissons in which case the tubes were sunk into the river bed until they reached firm support (rock??) then emptied and filled with concrete which then becomes the pier.  The iron tubes then become irrelevant and can quietly rust away below water level.

That was what happened with the Hawkesbury River bridges and the lack of concrete or the poor quality of what was used was a major factor in what ultimately doomed the original structure.

What does make me wonder however is that in the case of the Whitton Lattice Truss bridges the iron tubes continue right up to bridge level and are braced to one another.  That bracing is not there for the fun of it.

Continuing the tubes to bridge level may just have been a simpler way of constructing the above water piers in that it provided formwork for the concrete within and bracing for it.

I will now sit back and wait for someone to tell me the piers for the Hawkesbury bridges were stone and concrete respectively and there were no iron or steel tubes involved.  Think before you do.
7334

Of course its just sandstone and concrete Very Happy



No seriously thanks for that info, I would love to know how they built these massive piers back in the day and what they actually look like under the water line and below the bottom of the river.

Also how deep is the river there?
  7334 Chief Commissioner

Location: In the workshop wondering why I started 7334 in the first place
Some one said if its like the Wagga Bridge, the concrete support structures will be end of life, if this is the case then the bridge is in its last years and must go sooner or later. If the concrete support structures have another 25 years in them, then replace the deck with something more suitable and use the spans elsewhere.
RTT, a small correction which does not substantially alter the meaning of your post.
The support structures (caissson piles) are iron, not concrete. Being iron they are old and brittle, and in the Wagga case, literally cracking.
I would be very surprised if what is supporting the bridge is the iron tubes.

What seems more likely is that they were used as caissons in which case the tubes were sunk into the river bed until they reached firm support (rock??) then emptied and filled with concrete which then becomes the pier.  The iron tubes then become irrelevant and can quietly rust away below water level.

That was what happened with the Hawkesbury River bridges and the lack of concrete or the poor quality of what was used was a major factor in what ultimately doomed the original structure.

What does make me wonder however is that in the case of the Whitton Lattice Truss bridges the iron tubes continue right up to bridge level and are braced to one another.  That bracing is not there for the fun of it.

Continuing the tubes to bridge level may just have been a simpler way of constructing the above water piers in that it provided formwork for the concrete within and bracing for it.

I will now sit back and wait for someone to tell me the piers for the Hawkesbury bridges were stone and concrete respectively and there were no iron or steel tubes involved.  Think before you do.

Of course its just sandstone and concrete Very Happy



No seriously thanks for that info, I would love to know how they built these massive piers back in the day and what they actually look like under the water line and below the bottom of the river.

Also how deep is the river there?
RTT_Rules
Some years ago the ARHS ran a tour which involved a boat trip around the two bridges and commentary on the issues involved with each.

There were some quite comprehensive tour notes handed out on the day and  while I cannot find mine they are here somewhere.

If you can get hold of a copy they are very well worth reading.

As to what the piers of the original bridge look like below water level, and the river bottom, that would be the billion dollar question.  

I am working from memory of the tour notes from here on so while I write in good faith I cannot swear to its unquestionable accuracy but in the construction it was found that one of the piers was not up to standard and the contractor was made to remove the top of a caisson  and rebuild it.  A comment was made that, while that had fixed the problem they could see, "what was below that was anybody's guess."

Some years later when the iron caissons had rusted away a check was made of one of the actual piers and it was found that a rod could be pushed into what was supposedly solid concrete.  It was described as a blue gelatinous mass of no structural value.

The iron caissons for the original bridge were arranged in a single row of three tubes which apparently makes it more difficult to sink them straight while the new bridge had four tubes arranged in a square which makes it easier.

As a consequence one of the piers for the original was out of place and in one the stone pier had to be cantilevered out from the three caissons to get it where it was supposed to be.

If I can find my copy of the tour notes (meaning if Mrs 7334 has an idea where they are) I will check what I have written but if this is to go any further it really should be in a new thread.
  Lockspike Chief Train Controller

I would be very surprised if what is supporting the bridge is the iron tubes.

What seems more likely is that they were used as caissons in which case the tubes were sunk into the river bed until they reached firm support (rock??) then emptied and filled with concrete which then becomes the pier.  The iron tubes then become irrelevant and can quietly rust away below water level.

What does make me wonder however is that in the case of the Whitton Lattice Truss bridges the iron tubes continue right up to bridge level and are braced to one another.  That bracing is not there for the fun of it.

Continuing the tubes to bridge level may just have been a simpler way of constructing the above water piers in that it provided formwork for the concrete within and bracing for it.
7334
The iron caisson piles were filled with concrete but in the case of Wagga were definitely not considered redundant. As stated earlier, steel bands were placed to mitigate the impact of the damage and a severe speed restriction was imposed for years until the bridge was replaced.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: