How come the victorians built foot bridges that lasted the best part of a century. Then the stupid age knocks them all down and builds ones that are rusting and falling apart after a couple of years?
Historically we do it constantly, generation after generation of architectural styles are wiped away by developers in whatever style is "in", all because the Tudor, or Georgian, or whatever it happens to be at the time, buildings that currently sit in a place have not been there quite long enough for people to develop an appreciation for them, but have been long enough for architects who grew up with them to decide they're ugly. Generally the push for preservation of buildings in a given style as a majority warm up to them comes just at the tail end of mass destruction of the remaining examples of it.
Because things have been over engineered to death, to the point that they are adding built in detriment that is not necessary. Do you know why there are ancient concrete and concrete added structures that are hundreds and thousands of years old that are still mainly intact? ... because no rebar! Once you put steel into the concrete you create an area for moisture and rust to begin deteriorating the product. Yes it adds strength stiffness but it also adds built in deterioration at levels faster than with out it. Or so I've been told by those in the industry. The Romans also built better longer lasting roads thousands of years ago than we do now. Many still exist and are in use to this day. But we can't build a road that last 15-20 years without needing to be rebuilt. It would seem that sometimes technology and fancy engineering is not the best thing. We see the evidence every day.
It's not so much the preservation of architecture but more the stupidly of knocking down a perfectly good bridge and replacing it with cheap modern shite. I understand that it's been surveyed and might require a substantial amount of money spent on it but to knock it down and replace it with something that costs a lot more and don't last 5 mins is just plain stupid. And a complete waste of taxpayers money.
I know that Victorian London Bridge was replaced in the 1960s because it was overcrowded and sinking, but I'm not sure about any other bridges. I'm sure the engineers have good reason to replace the bridge entirely, rather than maintain a 170 year old bridge. Could you provide some examples please? I am very interested in this, but only know of London Bridge's history.
Yes corrosion is reinforced concretes biggest weakness over a length of time. Roads too they used to make them in reinforced concrete secrions and they lasted forever. Then they laid tarmac ontop of them and they are forever full of potholes.
Perhaps the reinforced concrete is used because it is stronger, therefore making the cost of the building cheaper, since less concrete supports will be needed. Although this is dependant on manufacturing quality, most reinforced concrete is made with adequate quality. Roads are made out of many many layers. The top layer is asphalt, which is not as strong as the layers below it, which are built to last as long as you like. The reason for the top layer being "disposable" is because it is cheaper to maintain and MUCH cheaper to install, since only the top layer should get damaged with potholes, leaving the lower layers intact. The cheapness also allows for many more roads to be built, since the cost allows for it. Oh, I was unaware of this. Let me do some research. Ok, I've done some research, and haven't found anything against the addition of a new footbridge - there didn't seem to be much disruption to accessibility. What's more, the some of the old bridges apparently weren't safe to use, so had to be blocked off. Also, while I am unaware of any details, I theorise that the new footbridges may be better positioned in regard to platform extensions that may have happened after the old footbridges were installed (unless the old bridge was already optimally placed) and may have allowed for the installations of lifts. What are your thoughts though Dave? I know I have a very... over-optimistic view on life, so I am interested in your argument. EDIT: here is a link to the video I learned about the whole asphalt on road thingy () Should be from 15:25 to 17:10
Yes the reinforcement allows for less concrete to be used making the structure lighter and less material is used. In addition to this it also allows for a longer span between supports, reducing the amount of supports required and saving a lot of material and money of course. With the roads, I don't buy it. A lot of roads around my area where concrete and they was solid, no potholes never. The only downside was the bump bump bump as you drove over the joins. Now it's bang omg my wheel has just exploded. And some of the bridges are a bit better placed yeah, and others not so. There's one at my local station which was built in 1880 something and it's just been refurbished. Then it is a branch line so probably harder to justify the spend.
I'm glad we agree with the reinforced concrete bit. I didn't know concrete roads existed. Let me do some research Ok I've done some research, and it seems like concrete roads are better suited to roads that have lots of lorries passing through, and probably some high-speed traffic (and obviously if the road is elevated on a bridge). Also, yes they are much MUCH stronger and last longer than asphalt. However, if they do crack or develop a pothole, the entire slab of concrete needs to be replaced, as opposed to just the small layer of asphalt. However, you did mention that your road never developed any faults, so that probably doesn't carry any value. Asphalt is much more comfortable to drive on, since it is quieter and smoother as you mentioned, and also allows cars to get more traction. I don't actually know what the type of roads you are referring to are. Are they B-roads at 20mph, A-roads at 30mph, or motorways at 70? Do they have houses on the side or bushes? Based on this, we can probably judge as "non-experts" what would probably be best (although at the moment concrete looks to be better!) Did you get find any reason from your city council as to why the roads were changed? I am glad we agree on the bridges, although I suspect your local footbridge wasn't replaced because a simple refurbishment was all that was needed (and was cheaper) instead of it just being a branch line. If they had replaced it then, many would have agreed with you that they shouldn't have replaced the Victorian bridge. Hang on a minute - didn't you suffer an accident from a pothole? Yes, you did! I remember the post! That does cast some reality on it. Perhaps your road is suffering from neglect? Or worse, the council doesn't know of it!
It was a mixture of residential streets and a roads. We have a docks locally so there is a lot of heavy traffic using the a roads. Plus neglect and poor repairs. Then I guess there's the bright idea of laying all the services under the roads, some look like the roads made entirely of patches. But the main road in and out was concrete for years with no damage to it at all. Now it's like your driving thru a mine field at 70mph.
In your case, it seems like the concrete is justified, which pains me greatly. I'm glad we agree on the road bit now.
Here's an absolute classic https://www.theguardian.com/culture...may-have-to-reverse-act-of-cultural-vandalism
I was gonna mention this. The government gives councils millions to research and restore abandoned railways and highways England thought nows the time to infill all the bridges?
The same reason that perfectly good Victorian houses have been demolished over the last 60 years and replaced with cheaply built and often less efficient housing, which is often now in need of replacement.........money, someone will be making some, somewhere, whether up front or on the side. Why did Worcester city council knock down medieval Lych Street at 5am in the morning in the mid 1960's, a decision which got planning approval by one vote.......money (I suspect in brown envelopes).
Sometimes repairing infrastructure built in the Victorian era (or earlier) can be more expensive than just building replacement bridges, houses, tunnels etc etc, especially if there are restrictions in place. So knock down a building that would cost (for example) £5 million to repair and bring up to modern safety standards and build a new one for half that.
Plenty of Victorian houses have been modernised over the years. Liverpool City Council were trying to knock down streets of Victorian terraces, however it was shown it was cheaper per house to refurbish them than build new. Whether they went ahead with the demolitions I know not. I know many who live in Victorian terraces, they are warm and cosy, space efficient and solid. Many housing estates built in the 60's to replace "slum" Victorian terraces have long gone, the Victorian terraces would probably still be standing. Some of it is simple vandalism, for example Kidderminster library being demolished a listed much revered structure replaced by an off the peg carbuncle, there was nothing wrong with the old library. I don't think the demolishing of medieval Lych Street in Worcester could be justified on any level. Possibly with infrastructure like bridges replacing might be cheaper.
completely agree. However in some ways that works backwards like in the 50s an 60s with the earth changing "Modernisation Plan" which I feel like the name is slightly bs as not one person thought "Well, these steam engines might be golden relics of the past" *Add 12 seconds later meme here* *Being Scrapped into tiny pieces* When in reality they could've expanded smaller mainlines to 4 or 5 lines and for the big 4 have 6. But no. That would be too good. And even then most old ones like the 40s, 45s, 47/0s and /3s have been scrapped as well so WHAT WAS THE POINT?! (Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting which I am it's just when i saw this thread I knew this would be the best place to get it off my chest).
The main point of the modernisation plan was to get rid of the labour intensive steam trains which needed a whole litany of systems behind it just to keep them running, and that the engines replacing them were more efficient in men, fuel and repairs Yet also, the government stuck their oars in, messed up how things ran and tried to keep manufacturing afloat by getting too many companies to make products they didn't know how to make. Which is why we ended up with so many classes around that time, many of which were either total rubbish or ended up with too few of them to maintain efficiently Then add in that the UK (stupidly) decided not to outlay on electrification of every mainline which has left us even today with stupid amounts of railways where trains are less efficient than they could be.
Parts of the northern extension to the M1 are concrete and the noise is horrendous even in well soundproofed vehicles. As for reinforced concrete, here in Yorkshire we have had to shut several bridges on or over motorways in the last few months because the structure is weakened and parts are falling to pieces.
ARuscoe Yeah I agree. On my local line with SWR and GWR you can in 1 day without fail have them late anywhere from 5 mins to 20. Sometimes they hold up others. Then freight runs 10 to 30 minutes early and it can be rare to find a freight or gwr running on time.
A30 east of Exeter as well, it's hard to even have a conversation in the car it's so loud, hit one of the asphalt patches and it's quiet again
In the case of Great Musgrave they'd have saved a fortune on the price of vandalising it and then fixing it, if they'd bothered to check if it had been repaired in 2012 allowing it to support up to 44T HGVs. Most recently this march they denied a request from the local heritage railways for the infill they have now been forced to dig out, to use in a new car park, which certainly didn't help improve their image locally.
Not sure what that has to do with the difference between steam engines and newer tech... The issue there is more likely because the demands we put on the system now are higher and less flexible than they were back then As an example it used to be common practice to have engines available at several points along the route to rescue any failures, that doesn't happen now You could also pull an entire service in the past, meaning the current timetable could more easily be caught up as you wouldn't have bunched up services. Now there's huge fines for that, as well as knock on effects In other words, comparing how the railways were run back then based on a 5 minute delay in 2023 probably isn't reflective of operations in either period...
The fines work against the passengers often. Due to delay repay being over 15 minutes, West Midlands Trains like to turn a stopping service on the Snow Hill lines into a fast service, presumably to avoid having to pay the compensation so if you use a "smaller" station as I do in the evening then you have to wait an hour for a train and watch the train you should have been on sailing merrily through the station. The system is certainly less flexible, they seem to have just enough trains to run the service, certainly round here, you certainly notice when there is a backlog of maintentance as you are crammed onto short trains or trains are cancelled. If a train breaks down and can't move it can take ages to rescue it. Since the new signalling on the route centered on one signalling centre, signal failures seem more common.
Back in the day you didn't get any compensation, or had to go through a complex compensation scheme. The automatic repayment right is a fairly new thing Previously it would just have been cancelled, so nobody would have had any service at all. Yup, there are less staff, less trains and less maintenance but that's not due to the tech, that's down to government funding where they'd prefer to pay off foreign billionaires and let amazon pay 1% tax than provide a good service Again, more complex systems mean more failures (or in this case a larger single point of failure) Previously there may have been 100 signal boxes, so any one not working only affected 10 miles or so of track. Now with computers, electric failures or one controller "going down" that can affect all of the previous 100 box areas.
I don't want a couple of £ in compensation. I would rather get on a late running train than sitting on a cold windswept station for an extra 30 minutes. No it would have just run late. This seems to be a fairly new thing. If a train was running late before, it was running late, now they turn it into a fast service. I have been commuting by train for over 15 years and this is recent, certainly on the Snow Hill lines. Yes I agree the system is not fit for purpose. Yes I realise that, this also equates to new is not necessarily better. It might mean more profits for the service provider but it does not benefit the passenger.
This counts as a cancelation for the stats/fines, but it's done because it recovers the service quicker, meaning the following service is less likely to be delayed. (be that the one behind, or that trains next booked trip once it reaches it's destination)
Okay so what thought is there for the poor passengers freezing their whatsits off on a cold and wet station with nothing but a rudimentary shelter, because the nice warm waiting is closed as the ticket office only opens in the morning. Sometimes these companies seem to forget that they are actually dealing with human beings who pay quite a lot for the privilege. I have had quite a few heated discussions with West Midlands Trains Twitter handler, suggesting that their management might want to waste half an evening on Langley Greet station.
Saying as we're talking about it, I think our rail infrastructure is so poor down to a combination of three major reasons: 1. Americanised Car-Dependence 2. Doing it on the Cheap / Incompetence 3. Politics Since the latter half of the 20th century brought the true era of the car upon us, our infrastructure had to be rapidly brought up to standard, it was never designed to haul such amounts of road traffic, with Railways being a significant way to get around instead. In doing this, however, we had to try and find a balance between preservation of buildings, heritage, etc. and how to handle these new demands. The Railway - due to the state of BR back then - was quickly falling off top spot. So, we built Motorways, paved our roads and embraced the car. In doing this, we not only had to sacrifice some our heritage when it comes to this infrastructure, but we also left railways behind - probably why the government never did the 'common sense' things with BR, such as electrifying most mainlines, and whatnot. France and Germany - despite having built impressive and modern routes that cut through countrysides and are dedicated to high-speed, also make good use of their conventional lines, with tiling trains, and electrification as much as possible. I find it no coincidence they also have state-owned operators there that operate and own most of the railway. On the flipside, I don't think nationalisation would work at a UK-wide scale again, because of our system. We are now, as an island, much further to the right politically and down a path of capitalism - and we no longer have an environment set up for public ownership. This could change, of course. Scotland and Wales both still have that more Social political culture, and both have (relatively successful) nationalised TOCs. Onto point number 2. for decades now, the Blue Party (no points for cracking this code) have tried to cut as much as they can from Government spending on public services, rail included. British Rail was the notable exemption from the Lady associated with Iron's privatisation frenzy, but it - obviously - didn't last. Since privatisation, we have come along leaps and bounds in creating a more modern network, but our infrastructure is still being attempted on the cheap. Projects like Crossrail and HS2 end up flying over budget because we do it incompetently and try and do it for as little as we can - which is never enough for it to work, so it needs more than it's allocated. I'll come back to this in the third point as well, however incompetence is an issue seen in pretty much every major transport project now. HS2 - Delays, Over Budget, and Sections cancelled. Crossrail - Massive Delays, Over Budget Scottish Ferries - Delays, Over Budget, lead to Shipyard being nationalised Class 385 - Delayed down to Design Flaws Class 701 (SWR) - Several delays Hydrogen Projects - Failing half the time (eg 314 conversion) And so forth. We fail to do anything right because we don't every try and do it right. Okay, Crossrail turned out fine in the end but it wouldn't have been problematic if we gave it what it needed. But, of course, we didn't. And in a natural segway, we come to Point 3; Politics. As my comments above will have indicated, i'm not quite on the Blue Party's side, but I will try to stay objective so to not have this thread turn into a war, or have this reply removed. Great British Railways - albeit not an infrastructure project - is a prime example. Under the Johnson Government, GBR was quite often brought up by the government, mainly by (then) Transport Secretary Grant Shapps - who, I may say, it seems was the driving force behind it. What happened after the collapse of the Johnson Government? Well, everyone forgot about GBR because of the mess that went on in London's political side, but it also went silent. Mr. Shapps left his role as Transport Secretary and we stopped hearing about it (the reason I think he was the one pushing for it). However - going back to Point 2 - GBR is just the current system with a new look to it. It's pointless. It saves money because, well it's easier to get private companies in to do the day-to-day operation of the trains on a franchise basis, rather than pay for it out of the government budget. May seem logical, but it'll just mean we move literally nowhere in terms of nationalising - or improving standards of services. Although, at the current rate, every TOC will be nationalised pretty soon. Anyway, it's 01:36 and I can hardly stay awake, so I'll be abruptly ending this mini-essay.
I wouldn't say the government money (or lack thereof) necessarily makes for better (or worse) trains. Japan's rail network is mainly privatized - especially the Shinkansen lines. Amtrak is nationalized yet they provide the worst service on those trains that make the most money (NY to Florida.) They get more money than they ever did and what do they do with it? Give the executives bonuses after having the worst year ever. They're supposed to improve their horrible food services, yet they don't. Airlines give better food. Yet Brightline is a private affair. Europe has private lines that seem to do quite well. Yet VIA, being public, has the best service and the highest quality long-distance equipment in the world - it's just a step down from the Orient Express. DB has fast, clean, well-run trains and they have food service that makes Amtrak look like a Greyhound bus. They're public. So while government certainly can make passenger trains better or worse, as can private enterprise, it's not a simple matter of "if only it was private/nationalized" or "it doesn't get enough money".
I'd agree, and the UK has a tendency to try and enforce last minute design changes to save money, which end up not doing so. For example HS2 at Euston was going OK, until the order came to redesign the station for more oversite development, and now there is another redesign because the order has come to ensure the station can support skyscrapers on the roof. Now the overspend is more than the original cost. The only way they could make it worse would be to hire Santiago Calatrava to design it! There is also a culture of cutting capital costs, even though it will increase operating costs later - East West Rail having electrification removed (and I understand the order came from the DfT to use cheaper track construction to save about 5% even though it would need about 20% more maintenance)
Yea but try building a skyscraper without rebar. Plus there is a bias to old structure because all that is left are the building and bridges that were so strongly build they last till this day. There are literally millions of structures that didn’t make it that were build in the last 2000 years
This misses out several key issues such as ministers with "interests" including one transport minister whose family owned a tarmac company and another who ran a road building company And the UK did not, because Thatcher thought that everything ought to be commercial, make it's own money and pay for itself. I doubt she ever thought that Britain would fall from whatever pedestal it was on, essentially be too small to stand on its own and also be brought down by people who wanted rights rather than working for a living (such as the UK motor trade which was specifically told their jobs would be protected only for them to implode when one company owned all the steel press plants in the UK (which ended up with the monopolies commission being formed)) I don't think most people care who runs what on what basis so long as they have a service that's usable when they want to. I don't see a huge issue with doctors being run by companies rather than the NHS, or hospitals, or dentists etc. The sign above the door says NHS and that's what people care about. Who cares if DB run Arriva or not, so long as the double arrow is outside the door? The main issue people have with private companies is the whole issue of shares and payouts, as in if 10% of my ticket is NOT going to the railway, why not? But then those are probably similar people to those who think that car tax goes to the roads rather than going to general taxation Nah, it's more fundamental than that. To get a project past public consultation they use the lowest possible values to get the project off the ground. Then they add up the costs across the project and you get the true value. I work in construction and the same happens all the time. To get your foot in the door you have to give a rock bottom valuation based on the minimum possible specification, and as the client adds more in you ratchet up the price. We had a project costed at £2.5m that by the time we finished cost almost three times that simply because there was no way of doing it at £2.5m in the first place Same with HS2. The value they told the public was never going to be the final cost, but they can't say that because in four years we vote them out and they can't have that can they? And as Fabdiva says, people keep sticking their oars in meaning redesigns and additional costs (no doubt with a view to selling the air above things to get some money back and somehow seem to be saving face) Yeah, this is a kicker. Why they haven't just instigated a program that any line with more than 10,000 passengers travelling on it per week gets electrified is beyond me. Electric trains are cheaper to make, maintain and operate but of course, it's all short sighted because of the way voting works in the UK
Thatcher wanted to privatise everything which is why the UK sold off it's gas, electric, trains, airports, TV towers and just about anything else funded or directly owned by the UK in the 80s and 90s As they say in the video "Thatcher didn't dare touch them" (2:18) So rather than not wanting to, more a case of politically sensitive compared to BP or British Gas or British Airways As the video goes on to say, many of the Tory seats were in rural england, places not best served by BR and places likely to lose service altogether if BR went private, which would lose the Tories votes
Yep, and compare a modern pre-stressed concrete box-girder bridge to a Roman viaduct/aqueduct - the viaduct will have a million and one arches because the span length was extremely poor, despite carrying only a tiny fraction of the load a modern bridge will. Survivor bias is a big problem with history in general.
Just like Roman roads. The big stones you see today were not the travel surface- that was gravel, the 'disposable' layer, which required constant maintenance by lots of soldiers.
It’s because of the British obsession with tendering and awarding contracts to the lowest bidder. Bidders bid artificially low for fear of losing the contract then the successful bidder puts as little resource into it that they can get away with.
A friend sent me a blurb the other day that made me think of this thread. "If you think you're somehow smarter or better than the generations who preceded you, consider this: 50 years ago, a car owner's manual told you how to adjust the valves. Today the manual tells you not to drink the battery fluid."
Given most engines are now interference engines, having random people trying to adjust valves will probably end up with destroyed engines. Pretty sure batteries have always had the do not drink labelling
