Somerleyton Bridge Not Operational

[Cockatoo]

15 hours ago, Philosophical said:

You've cracked it!!!

if you read the earlier post it states that "summer rails" was not a term that the engineers recogise so maybe if they were to look for "higher ambient temperature operating condition substitution rails" them maybe they would find them.

They were there all along.

Lol, I think the Edwardian's had more sense and would have stuck with 'summer rails'. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have employed someone with a degree in making up silly names for things. Isn't that a modern idea?

[ScrumpyCheddar]

19 hours ago, Bound2Please said:

Who says that they haven't been maintained? do you know this for certain? The answer is plain and simple. Weld all bridges straight line track running. Then there is no longer a bridge opening problem. Or get a craft that is broads friendly design for passing under railway bridges. All these super dooper boats have only appeared in  recent times, even wherry's had masts that were tabernackled for passing under bridges.  This is like the couple who bought a cheap house next to a bust pub, then try n get the pub shut as its devaluing their cheap house.

Thats the last i'll say on this subject with my mods hat off.

Charlie

Weld the bridges shut...... what a load of cobs wallop...  just fit the summer rails simple....Then everyone can enjoy the rivers....  I’m getting abit sick and fed up with certain people on here having a pop at big boat owners.... if they want to have bigger boats fair play to them.... and if they need the bridges open to get through....there in there right to have them opened..... they pay there tolls... a hell of lot more then you moaners in your little boats.....  

[vanessan]

26 minutes ago, ScrumpyCheddar said:

Weld the bridges shut...... what a load of cobs wallop...  just fit the summer rails simple....Then everyone can enjoy the rivers....  I’m getting abit sick and fed up with certain people on here having a pop at big boat owners.... if they want to have bigger boats fair play to them.... and if they need the bridges open to get through....there in there right to have them opened..... they pay there tolls... a hell of lot more then you moaners in your little boats.....  

Some truth in what you said but I think you could have put it a bit more pleasantly. 

[trambo]

A story.

Hi all my name is John, I'm married to Mandy and have two children John jnr and Brenda.

My story starts  four years ago when I was made redundant and was in and out of work until I got a job over at Cantley.

I used to travel by train from Oulton Broad North catching the 06:39 which got me there just after 07:00 which was great as I started work at 07:30. Coming home was equally relaxing. What always puzzled me though was that beside myself there were always twenty five people who had got on at Lowestoft and where going to Norwich. No one ever got on or off at any of the station on route. Very strange. Anyway life was great until the summer when the heat was giving the swing bridges on route problems. This resulted in angry posts to a Broads forum about right of navigation. Not from proper Broads boaters of course who's craft were designed for the area but those shinning white juggernaughts usually moored up at Brundall. I thought to myself that there was a right of navigation between Beccles and Gedeston, but you won't be going! At the same time another correspondent and his friends complained about being held up at the level crossing on Bridge Road claiming the railway was underused and should be closed. Well the powers to be got hold of the story, ran out all the objections to closure and low and behold the line shut last year.They said the boaters brought in a lot of money and motorists were not to be inconvenienced at any cost. They did provide a replacement bus service much to the consternation of local residents at it used roads that where really not suitable. So on the first day there was myself and the twenty five people who got on at Lowestoft and went to Norwich. Of course it went to every station en route even though as we know, no one ever gets on or off at them. So we got to Haddiscoe, so far so good. Next stop Reedham. How do we get there? Into Great Yarmouth and out to Acle then down to Reedham and then two hours  after leaving Oulton into Cantley.

Now my employer was very understanding and let me start at 0900 which meant by the time I got home I was tired and irritable. I now only saw the chicks at the weekend. I became depressed and the doctor said I was suffering from anxiety and put me on a prescription. Life at home became intolerable and I thought our marriage was about to fail but after some mediation we now seem to be coping

Life has not been all bad though. Mandy's friend Abigail, who lives across the road found her a job at a place on the Carlton Colville road which paid big money. So much so that she bought a small Fiesta even though the office was only a twenty minute walk. I suggested they do a car share but Abigail would have none of it. They  go to the Wherry a few of times a week for lunch but on a couple of days got held up at the lock returning to work. This made Abigail, who is hot tempered at the best of times, furious and she started complaining on a Broads forum. Not the nice one, that other one. Anyway once again it's been picked up by the authorities who said for the time taken for an elite few was far to much of an inconvenience to motorists and the lock will close at the end of the summer. Strangely enough the bloke and his friends who complained about being held up at the level crossing are on one, saying the lock must stay. There was me thinking how chuffed they would be as you will now be able to sail, sorry, drive down Bridge Road with no hold ups!

Where does that leave me. Well the twenty five passengers who got on at Lowestoft and went to Norwich now go by car which is funny because I was reading yesterday in the EDP about the increasing problem of traffic in Norwich. So I am now the only person who uses the bus. Remember, no one gets on or off at any of the other station.......ever. So because of lack of use it is to be withdrawn next month and I'm trawling the internet for another job but hey ho, thats life.

Mandy! Is it time for my medication?

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

Fred, taking the country route, albeit longer is no bad thing. Pre Beeching we had a lovely country route from Lowestoft to Norwich. largely missing all those unused stations, and broken down bridges, it went via Hopton & Great Yarmouth. It was medication in itself!

[Guest]

11 hours ago, DaveRolaves said:

Most of the boats from the Brundall navy  can still get under the bridges up to approx low to approx. half flood tide if the bridges are unable to open.

With the canopy removed and the radar arch  down and the upper helm windows folded down then most of the craft then have an air draft of under ten feet with the highest point on the craft being at the height of the compass forward of the aft steering position.

Sadly there is still a awful lot that can't.

[JennyMorgan]

The sad thing about this whole saga is that in this modern age, and not just on the Broads, we simply can not trust the railways to deliver. If someone chooses to moor at Brundall then they will just have to accept the likelyhood of a broken down bridge.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The sad thing about this whole saga is that in this modern age, and not just on the Broads, we simply can not trust the railways to deliver. If someone chooses to moor at Brundall then they will just have to accept the likelyhood of a broken down bridge.

We know that now!

I would assume that most people who own boats that will not pass under the bridges did first research the location to understood the limitations of a mooring in Brundall (rather than Ipswich or the south coast for example), the main ones being: forget the northern broads, a lot of the smaller waterways are too shallow and it takes a few hours to get out to the sea. These restrictions were clearly understood and accepted.

The information that is not so widely publicised or available, unless you already know of the problem, is the unreliability of the bridges and subsequent effect on your ability to navigate the southern broads or get out to sea can be restricted or prevented without notice. 

[Vaughan]

I couldn't help laughing when I read this morning's EDP about the usual Monday morning train cancellations from Norwich to London, cited this time as "electrical faults". So much for "Norwich In 90" then. There are also cancellations to Yarmouth and Lowestoft, as "more stock needed maintenance than expected". Wonder if that has something to do with the air show?

I think I need first to declare that I am a big fan of Norfolk's railways. I ought to be - I grew up on Thorpe Island! I can remember catching steam trains to Yarmouth from Whitlingham station. I am also always conscious that we owe the Norfolk Broads as we know them today, to the railways. That is how all the holidaymakers were brought here, between the wars and that is what created the Broads boating scene. Very many members of this forum are descendants of those holiday families, who first came here by train. So I would not like to see the line close. A journey on that line with those lovely views out over the marshes, is a tourist "event" in its own right. The only other way to enjoy that view is from the flying bridge of Independence!

But railways also have to be economically viable and I am reminded that the M&GN railway closed entirely, because long viaduct bridges across the Wash needed renewing and the newly nationalised British Railways couldn't afford it. Same thing for the line from Yarmouth Southtown to Beccles, which also had two swing bridges. All this happened before Beeching identified that there were a lot of other lines that we couldn't afford!

We have to accept that Reedham to Lowestoft is a country branch line and Abellio don't seem to have enough of their owns trains to run it, without bringing almost 60 year old class 37 diesels out of retirement. Those Mk 2 coaches they are hauling are only 4 years younger! So much track work has been stripped out of the stations at Yarmouth and Lowestoft that a locomotive can no longer "run round" its train, to go back the other way. As the coaches are not fitted for "push pull" working, they have to have a loco at each end, for only 3 coaches. This can't be economical, surely? 

These mighty and indeed impressive engines weigh 100 tons each plus 900 gallons of fuel each. With the weight of the coaches and even with only a few passengers, you are running a short train of about 300 tons over those bridges at about 10 MPH (at Reedham) and I am very surprised they can stand that sort of treatment, at their age!

And yet they are spending a lot of money on new signalling and I was astounded to see on the timetable that they run no less than 18 trains a day in each direction, on the line. So is it economical. and what is its future?

Personally, I think it is up to the BA to more forcefully represent the case for the navigation, in the hope that both river and rail users can continue to pursue their activities in harmony.

I don't agree with the suggestion that "boat size matters", however. Navigation is navigation!

 

[JennyMorgan]

45 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Sadly there is still a awful lot that can't.

But then having such a boat, with the obvious limitations for the Broads, is the owner's choice, surely. I don't see it as sad that said owners miss the delights of Hickling, so long as they don't complain and demand that the Broads is altered in order to accommodate their choice. What a gin palace offers is, by Broad boat standards, palatial living and comfort and the chance to nip over to Holland in order to top up on gin, a lot to be said for it. I have a kayak, absolutely nowhere on the Broads that I can't go, appalling accomodation and no television,  so it sure as heck won't suit every one! We can buy the boat that we like, and accept it's limitations, or buy a Broads boat and enjoy most of the Broads, or better still buy a kayak and enjoy all of the Broads! OUR CHOICE. 

What I have never understood is the lack of initiative by Broads boatyards when it comes to building replica wherries. The Dutch are very good at building modern, luxurious replicas of their traditional boats but it's something which we Brits don't do, other than on the canals. For a kick off there are no size limits on replica wherries so a 65 footer is perfectly feasable, 65 feet of unashamed luxury perhaps? All on one level and build for the Broads. No radar arch, it's what the mast is for!  There are some gorgeous looking GPs out there, equally there are some, especially one or two of the latest ones, that are hidiously ugly, as are one or two of our hire boats, but a replica wherry would have a pedigree that should avoid that, unless of course some fool puts tear drop windows in it!

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I couldn't help laughing when I read this morning's EDP about the usual Monday morning train cancellations from Norwich to London, cited this time as "electrical faults". So much for "Norwich In 90" then. There are also cancellations to Yarmouth and Lowestoft, as "more stock needed maintenance than expected". Wonder if that has something to do with the air show?

I think I need first to declare that I am a big fan of Norfolk's railways. I ought to be - I grew up on Thorpe Island! I can remember catching steam trains to Yarmouth from Whitlingham station. I am also always conscious that we owe the Norfolk Broads as we know them today, to the railways. That is how all the holidaymakers were brought here, between the wars and that is what created the Broads boating scene. Very many members of this forum are descendants of those holiday families, who first came here by train. So I would not like to see the line close. A journey on that line with those lovely views out over the marshes, is a tourist "event" in its own right. The only other way to enjoy that view is from the flying bridge of Independence!

But railways also have to be economically viable and I am reminded that the M&GN railway closed entirely, because long viaduct bridges across the Wash needed renewing and the newly nationalised British Railways couldn't afford it. Same thing for the line from Yarmouth Southtown to Beccles, which also had two swing bridges. All this happened before Beeching identified that there were a lot of other lines that we couldn't afford!

We have to accept that Reedham to Lowestoft is a country branch line and Abellio don't seem to have enough of their owns trains to run it, without bringing almost 60 year old class 37 diesels out of retirement. Those Mk 2 coaches they are hauling are only 4 years younger! So much track work has been stripped out of the stations at Yarmouth and Lowestoft that a locomotive can no longer "run round" its train, to go back the other way. As the coaches are not fitted for "push pull" working, they have to have a loco at each end, for only 3 coaches. This can't be economical, surely? 

These mighty and indeed impressive engines weigh 100 tons each plus 900 gallons of fuel each. With the weight of the coaches and even with only a few passengers, you are running a short train of about 300 tons over those bridges at about 10 MPH (at Reedham) and I am very surprised they can stand that sort of treatment, at their age!

And yet they are spending a lot of money on new signalling and I was astounded to see on the timetable that they run no less than 18 trains a day in each direction, on the line. So is it economical. and what is its future?

Personally, I think it is up to the BA to more forcefully represent the case for the navigation, in the hope that both river and rail users can continue to pursue their activities in harmony.

I don't agree with the suggestion that "boat size matters", however. Navigation is navigation!

 

As the coaches are not fitted for "push pull" working, they have to have a loco at each end, for only 3 coaches

Thank you for that gem of wisdom, I've always wondered why they need two immensely powerful locomotives for just 3 coaches ........the noise is wonderful though.

[trambo]

On the matter of the bridges there is no doubt they should do what their made for - swing. People have purchased their boat in good faith on the understanding they do, so they should. Without being too political it would be nice to do a DUP to Mrs May. Anyone on good terms with any of their M.P.s?

As far as railways go, I would never be in favour of keeping a no hope line open. The mistake we made after Beeching was to let the track beds be piecemeal sold off, they should have been kept intact in case circumstances alter. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I do remember being quite excited at the tender age of thirteen as he explained his vision for the railways.

I really don't know enough about passenger figures on any of the Broadland lines to give any sort of knowledgable comment but some things are fairly obvious to me. First the Broads network can be seen as one unit. Similar to say Merseyrail. Second, the terminal points are often not ideal. This is especially so at Great Yarmouth which I think is a disgrace. Now what would I do if the money was there. First all lines would be converted to tram - train technology. This type of vehicle is common in Germany and France and we are about to introduce them as a trial between Rotherham(train) and Sheffield (tram). I understand they are also planned for Cardiff. If this type of vehicle was introduced then the confines of Great Yarmouth station could be left behind and the tram - trains actually go somewhere. Similarly at Thorpe Station they could get out into the City centre and wouldn't the airport be an excellent terminal point?

Fred

[grendel]

get rid of the big locos, replace them with steam engines, replace the long weld rail wit 60 ft clickety clack rails and you have a grade 1 tourist attraction that can also be used to transport the local workers, better still get a steam enthusiast group to run it and maintain the bridges, it might not make a fortune, but it might just pay its way, the volunteers would get the bridges working by maybe replacing the summer rails twice a year as it used to work. you are then selling the route as a tourist experience, would probably be able to get lottery funding.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, grendel said:

get rid of the big locos, replace them with steam engines, replace the long weld rail wit 60 ft clickety clack rails and you have a grade 1 tourist attraction that can also be used to transport the local workers, better still get a steam enthusiast group to run it and maintain the bridges, it might not make a fortune, but it might just pay its way, the volunteers would get the bridges working by maybe replacing the summer rails twice a year as it used to work. you are then selling the route as a tourist experience, would probably be able to get lottery funding.

I'd certainly be a volunteer!!

[Paul]

On 16/06/2018 at 05:28, Bound2Please said:

That would be easy, change all rails from terminus to terminus for 60ft's instead of the LWR bridge problem solved. But

(a)  would the passengers like the clippty clip for the whole journey

(b)  every 60 ft would be needed two track circuit bonds, which need a regular weekly walk through checking.

(c)  just imagine the out cry at the fair increase for all this old Victorian technology being reinstated.

So the most obvious solution to all this

(1)  Leave as is

(2)  Or the most logical, change the law weld the two bridges in the closed position, saves all those wages, as there is no longer commercial working ports on the Waveney or Yare problem solved. All broads friendly boats still able to navigate safely, problem solved and money saved.

(3)  Put a crowd funding up to raise a few million to have built a state of the art 21st century bridge built, no thinking more sensible it should be tens of million's to raise.

So all in all I recon its a case of put up with whats there, make do with it as it is a\ Victorian designed bridge that has worked for in excess of a 100 years, and should still be ok for an other 100 years at least. But make sure no water with the slightest chance of salinity in it gets near these historical works of art.

Charlie (mods hat clearly off)

Whilst we are considering silly options, can I add one of my own? Our local railway bridge was too low for the modern lorries and double decker busses so they dug the road out, removed three feet of sub then rebuilt the road, Hey presto, three feet extra clearance in the matter of a week or so. Perhaps they could do the same at Somerleyton?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Paul said:

Whilst we are considering silly options, can I add one of my own? Our local railway bridge was too low for the modern lorries and double decker busses so they dug the road out, removed three feet of sub then rebuilt the road, Hey presto, three feet extra clearance in the matter of a week or so. Perhaps they could do the same at Somerleyton?

With a lock each side of the bridge that would be workable. (would need a pump for the "locked" section)

[Bound2Please]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

the volunteers would get the bridges working by maybe replacing the summer rails twice a year as it used to work

what the flip are summer rails, a rail is a rail, they all expend and contract. no such thing sorry

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Bound2Please said:

what the flip are summer rails, a rail is a rail, they all expend and contract. no such thing sorry

One that is is little bit shorter to start with, so that with the expansion and contraction at higher temperatures the overall length of the rails is still within the overall length tolerances.

[grendel]

ok lets call them short rails then, we dont want to get hung up on technical names, but before we get too involved in the length of the rails, are we sure that this is the issue that stops the bridge opening, perhaps the locking pins expand and jam?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, grendel said:

ok lets call them short rails then, we dont want to get hung up on technical names, but before we get too involved in the length of the rails, are we sure that this is the issue that stops the bridge opening, perhaps the locking pins expand and jam?

When we were called to investigate "issues" with mechanical equipment these were generally performance issues or reliability issues. One of the very first questions we would ask is "Did it ever perform as specified or has it always been unreliable". If we apply that line of questioning to the bridge, the answers to these question are "yes and no"  Given those answers our investigation would initially focus on what has changed since there were no issues, to establish the root cause of the current issues, rather that look to modify the design or operating practices. 

[JanetAnne]

There are pictures of Somerleyton bridge with these shorter rails laid alongside the normal rails ready for use. I bet Jenny Morgan has some?

[dnks34]

Why not just leave the shorter rails in place permanently?

If its a bit bumpy over the bridge.....so what!

 

[Bound2Please]

47 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Given those answers our investigation would initially focus on what has changed since there were no issues, to establish the root cause of the current issues, rather that look to modify the design or operating practices.

First off this is now getting tiresome. Have any of you ever worked hands on, on the railway. Rail expansion is a far bigger problem than most give it credit. mechanical switches (POINTS) had in fact still will have on mechanical signaling, commentators on rodding runs to counter the expansion and contraction problems. There is no safe way to do such with rails. A shorter rail is just laughable. Who pay the wages of a Pway gang to keep changing them dawn n dusk.  Plus most of those staff will be out on heat patrol any way.

[Cockatoo]

14 minutes ago, Bound2Please said:

First off this is now getting tiresome. Have any of you ever worked hands on, on the railway. Rail expansion is a far bigger problem than most give it credit. mechanical switches (POINTS) had in fact still will have on mechanical signaling, commentators on rodding runs to counter the expansion and contraction problems. There is no safe way to do such with rails. A shorter rail is just laughable. Who pay the wages of a Pway gang to keep changing them dawn n dusk.  Plus most of those staff will be out on heat patrol any way.

hey'd only have o be changed twice a year. I don't think anyone is advocating changing hem evry time he sun comes out

[grendel]

In reality the change is that in years gone by manpower to change out the tracks was cheap and plentiful, I surmise that they were only changed twice a year, for maybe three or four months over the summer months, the trains ran on looser tolerances than modern track, so a slightly larger gap between sections was not considered a problem. I  have not worked on the track, but I do have family that do / have. my father worked doing time and motion study for british rail, I myself have worked in one of our offices trackside at lewisham where we were doing transformer replacements for national Rail, so I do have some understanding and have seen changes introduced that reduced the manpower available.

Dont forget though, that the expansion will not just be the track, the whole framework of the bridge will expand due to the heat, this was why I posed the question, whether it was purely the rail expansion,that was the cause, not the expansion of other parts of the structure too.