Midsomer Norton road bridge.

i was told 6 million as its not just the bridge. you have to lower the road and move a main gas pipe that is just under the surface. is there any official people from the s&djr on this website who know more.

 

Gav106, I'm not an officer of the S&DHRT just a member, but I'm sure you are right as the job so I'm led to believe will involve doing more than just building up abutments and throwing a double tracked girder bridge across. The road will need to be lowered, the drainage therefore altered and a gas main diverted. £6 million seems a ridiculous amount of money but it isn't once you start involving national resources such as roads, gas mains etc. However, I expect someone who is in a much better position regarding the facts than I will hopefully tell us more.

 

Good luck to the guys at MN-I hope their bridge replacement project flourishes.How can it be called unrealistic,when much,much bigger acheivements have been accomplished in raiway preservation? It's only a matter of time before some of the S&D goups come together-what an exciting prospect! It's a pity that the world wasn't ready for Radstock( In general terms of the S8D) the first time around. Let's hope the new appetite for 'big society' helps them along-in the new phase of aspirations.

 

I lived at Midsomer Norton when the road improvements were introduced. When the railway was still operating the bridge was only high enough for single decker buses to pass under. As soon as the tracks were removed the incline of Silver Street was evened out and realigned. If the railway bridge were to be reinstated the road at this point would have to be lowered once again and a height restriction imposed for high sided vehicles entering the town centre. <BJ>

 

It is very unlikely (read almost impossible) that you will be allowed to put a bridge over a road which would cause a height restriction. Thesedays there are standards which have to be met so either you raise the railway or lower the road.

 

surely this is why i have heard a figure of 6 million.

 

sorry to go off topic slightly, but is Peak rails bridge over the A6 in the same boat with regard road height?

just wondering how much they where quoted, if they have costed it

Mike

 

I wonder if the SDHT has actually asked the local authority/Highways Agency if they would actually permit the road to be lowered? There could be all sorts of issues here including the drainage of the lowered road, the safety of pedestrians and, as we seem to be having to endure 'traditional winters', if the gradients of a lowered road would permit its use during bad weather.

If the SDHT decides to go the other way, towards Chilcompton, then there are the infill sites to consider. As has already been mentioned these might include all sorts of toxic waste which is a problem, but there is also the issue of the hundreds (thousands?) of lorry journeys that would be required to remove the stuff and take it elsewhere. Unlike the Bluebell, the SDHT is not connected to the national rail network and getting planning permission for all those lorry movements must pretty impossible.

Although there have been posts which ask that the SDHT is not prejudged on this matter, and I do respect those posters and their sentiments, I just cannot see how the SDHT is going to get out of its problems. It made the wrong decision to go to Midsomer Norton and I think that it is condemned by that decision to be a 'steam centre' rather than a 'preserved railway'. Steam centres have their virtues, very good virtues, and perhaps the SDHT just needs to recognise the limitations of its situation and make the best, I'm sure a very good best, of it.

Sorry if this offends.

Regards

 

No offence whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. Your point of view is a very valid one especially if the intention was to turn Midsomer Norton into a heritage railway a la GWR, NYMR etc. Currently, as I understand it, Midsomer Norton is being restored as far as is possible to recreate a bit of the "S&D experience" on a real part of the original S&D. Several other railways run S&D themed events but this is the real thing! However, the organisation knows that it is in a very restricted situation so its trying to "like what it has rather than having what it likes" hence the excellent work done at Midsomer Norton thus far.
This is a totally different viewpoint from the "New S&D" group which takes the view that Midsomer Norton is merely a temporary situation before the whole line is reinstated from Bath to Bournemouth because there will be no other way to travel - private cars, lorries and other vehicles will be too expensive and the road infrastructure irrepairable (well that bit is already happening!) because of high oil prices. However, my personal view is that, whilst the S&D should be reinstated throughout and every taxpayer should have £100 forcibly removed from their wallets to pay for it, there is such a thing as democracy and not everyone is convinced by the argument! Another "unkown crystal ball scenario" is that, in 2011, varieties of electric cars will start to come onto the market which at last offer viable alternatives to petrol and diesel. So we shall see. That said, if the Silver Street Bridge was to be reinstated, it would offer tremendous potential for the Midsomer Norton operation. Technically there is nothing to stop it, legally, financially.... well, that's a different matter. I think the country should be made to pay for the reinstatement of the whole S&D but I'm not in a position of power - perhaps, as my family reminds me daily, that's not a bad thing!

 

I thought it might be useful if you all had a response from someone who has been intimately involved with the Midsomer Norton project since its inception. Thanks for some of the supportive and not so supportive comments - we do appreciate constructive criticism of what we are trying to achieve and we do realise that there are some sceptics out there as well as those who see even small bit of the S&D returned to steam as something they thought would never happen. Our present and most pressing aim is to get to the Chilcompton infill - there are three landowners involved, two of whom have signed leases and the third we will be negotiating with shortly. These three elements will give us just over a mile initially single but eventually double track to the infill area. It is our intention to provide a run round loop initially and to build a small platform so that people can stretch their legs or make their way to the village of Chilcompton via nearby public footpaths. Double track will give us considerable operating flexibility but the first aim is single track. At the same time we hope to continue with the permissive path that we have built alongside the trackbed so that walkers have an alternative route (that alone has cost us upwards of £5,000 thus far). The Imberhorne cutting exercise shows that taking spoil and relocating it elswhere is possible for a cost - Chilcompton is less in overall cubic metres but it would almost certainly need the same checks as to what was thrown in there back in the 1970s and specialist removal. We do have an environmental planning expert to call on who has worked with landfills but before we even contemplate that we would need to be speaking with the rifle club who use the current tunnels for their sporting activity. They also own land to the south of the tunnels - we have made no approached to them as yet because quite frankly there is no need to just yet. We don't as an organisation spend what we haven't got and all our current efforts are devoted to purchasing track obtaining the necessary planning permissions on the land we do lease, sorting out the environmental issues re trees, reptiles etc etc and these take an inordinate amount of time.

That is not to say that we don't have longer term ambitions southwards and with one of our members owning Masbury that would be a great place to aim for in the long term, funds permitting. However, we have not approached any landowners anywhere en route to Masbury because we have to concentrate on the bit up to Chilcompton first.

The removal of the Silver Street bridge and the realignment of the road and raising its profile was inevitable at a time when revived railways were simply not on the agenda locally or nationally and there is no doubt whatsoever that this will be a tall order, no pun intended. The appeal by the New S&D has come completely out of the blue for the Trust/Company at Midsomer Norton - there has been no consultation whatsoever with us and quite frankly, such an appeal may not actually assist anyone's longer term aims in relation to getting back to Radstock. We have worked extremely hard over the last 18 months with the local Bath & North East Somerset politicians and officers to ensure that the proposed Sustrans cycle route from Radstock to Midsomer Norton does not prevent a longer term reinstatement of the railway and the planning permission that was given does ensure that the path must be constructed on one side of the former double track railway. We have never hidden our aim to get back to Radstock and in our excellent member magazine we have kept that as an ongoing profile for some years. The work we have done over the years has paid off in respect of getting the route for a single track protected. The new S&D is therefore making its proposal for a bridge fund on the back of the solid work we have done at quite a cost in terms of officer time and funds over all those years and our concern is that it will (a) dilute what has and can be achieved at Midsomer Norton on the work needed to go to Chilcompton and (b) undermine our behind the scenes approaches that are essential to sound out those who will have the final say on whether one could cover that gap (and the two other bridges that are required).That approach is absolutely essential to create the sort of atmosphere that is required to produce a successful outcome - the new S&D's intervention on the back of the careful and painstaking work we have been involved in for some years may turn out to be totally counterproductive.

We have a members who is one of the UK's bridge reinstatement experts who has been involved with many railways (ibcluding the Welsh Highland) and he has undertaken a free comprehensive survey for us. We have not and don't at this stage intend to make his findings public as they are still being written up and alternative scenarios considered - suffice it to say that we have not costed a bridge, so the £1 million quoted is a figure that has simply been plucked out of the air with no reference to this expert's findings or the Trust/Company. I can however confirm that there are major problems with the utilities in the road and pavement and these will be very costly to reroute - nothing though is insurmountable given the funds and the prospect of a Radstock to Chilcompton run is not something that we would ever dismiss as being impossible to achieve. It is indeed unfortunate that no approach about this proposed appeal has been made to us by the "new S&D" and that we only found out about this from one of our members who went into their site recently. Obviously we cannot prevent them from doing their own thing if they wish as we don't own the land but that doesn't make for a well co-ordinated approach to matters S&D something that we have striven hard to engender with Washford and Shillingstone over the last few years. At present the new S&D is not part of those regularly calendered conversations and does appear to want to go its own way at present.

 

jbncer, Many thanks for your comprehensive update, from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I think this answers a number of questions on this forum and it also confirms the fund raising proposals for the bridge by the "New S&D" were made independently of the Midsomer Norton operation. That's not a criticism but an observation, however, it doesn't seem proper to be done without consultation by them to you first.

 

The A6 road bridge at Rowsley is mentioned a few posts back. I have no connection with Peak Rail, but can say that having driven through Rowsley on the A6, I suspect "height" is not an issue, rather the distance to be spanned. The abutments have been cut back, and that the road is wider now. The rail trackbed is also on a curve at this point, as indeed is the A6, hence the widening.
A further issue immediately north of Rowsley is the ownership of the trackbed which I think has reverted to the Haddon Estate, which is allegedly solidly against reinstatement of the railway, as indeed they were when the line was originally built, insisting on a cut and cover tunnel through the grounds of Haddon Hall.

Edit: Iain: Thanks for your comments below. In any event, the sheer cost is unlikely to be met from Peak Rail resources. They need to tackle the Derwent bridge at Matlock first.

 

Off topic, but ref the above, height most certainly IS an issue, as the road used to dip under the old bridge but was levelled after removal of the old bridge - plus lorry heights have increased in the interim. Proposals, such as the are at present, require a ELR-style ramp on the approach, which in turn presents problems for a future Rowsley station as it is hard by the bridge, and platform levels will therefore be affected etc. Iain

 

Sometimes projects take a long time to get going, but little by little they get there. I for one wish you all the best and am sure in time you will make the progress you want, despite the detractors (as I understand large railways like the SVR and NYMR had to overcome offical dislike before they even got going)

 

The supporters of the S&DJR seem to be splintering by the hour: there is now the SDT at Washford; the SDHT at Midsomer Norton; the group at Shillingstone station; and now the 'New S&D'. I can't help but feel that if this iconic railway is to be remembered, at least in part, as a preserved working railway then these groups should come together and work as one.

What is needed, surely, is a preserved line at least six miles long, and preferably eight to ten, with a terminal station at each end and at least one intermediate station. Is it too much to expect that these different groups come together to realise such a prospectus?

Regards

 

To be fair, MN, Shillingstone and the narrow gauge folk do work together, and with the SDT.
It's the new 'New S&D' that seems to be outwith the fold.

 

As the last post said, the various S&D groups do all work well together and increasingly so. Not only that, they are enough of a distance apart to not be diminishing each other's efforts and several members belong to all 3 groups.

 

For the record, the "New S&D" Group now owns the Midford Station site and is engaged in restoring this iconic part of the S&D to as much as its original state as possible but still allowing cyclists to use it for now. The same group is also pressing ahead with work at Spetisbury and is testing the water at Blandford with a longer term aim to reinstate a rail link from Blandford to the National network once more (this in my view is perhaps one of the better arguments for reinstating at least part of the S&D as part of a modern rail network.) Sorry this is some way from Silver Street bridge but it does show that there is growing interest in the S&D. Pity there wasn't the clout there in 1966 but there wasn't!

 

Thanks to jbncer for setting out the trusts position and update. I have to take a minor issue with him on costs; my original suggestion that Silver Street Bridge could be rebuilt for less than a million was not plucked out of the air, but confirmed by civil engineering colleagues. I obviously did not make clear in my original post that I was only referring to the actual bridge ,I am well aware that the costs involved in the diversion of all the services and rebuilding the road to new profile is not quantifiable at present and could be substantial.

The number of views on this topic shows how much support there is for the S and D, the Trust at Midsomer Norton have launched an appeal to purchase track materials to extend towards Chilcompton, details on the trusts website : http://www.sdjr.co.uk/ .
Donation in the post from me.

 

John

Thanks for giving such a comprehensive overview of Midsomer Norton's achievements and plans.

Can I just address two points. The New S&D has no interest in treading on MN's toes, ONE member suggested that we should look into restoration of the bridge at Silver Street. Being a reactive organisation I agreed this was a good idea and that the matter could be brought up at our next AGM. Until any decision was made, although an informal approach to MN would be made (and no doubt will be after the holiday!), there would be nothing concrete and I'm sure you don't want to be bothered with every plan and idea that comes up in other S&D groups! Obviously any such scheme, if it is launched, will only be done under the wing of the SDRHT as we consider that whole Shepton to Radstock route as solely your responsibility. It's just an idea!

And the New S&D certainly doesn't want to stand apart from the existing heritage groups on the route. In fact we invited yourselves, Gartell and Shillingstone to nominate members for our Board at start up - but no replies. We would LOVE to be involved with these calendered meetings (which I once attended as an SDRHT officer) - but I understand we are to 'prove ourselves' before any invitation is forthcoming. I had hoped the acquisition and clearing of Midford would gain us entry to the club - but no invite as yet! Not even a link on your website.

So to conclude - there is no decision yet on Silver Street, it will need to be proposed and seconded at our AGM even to be discussed, if any such scheme is considered it will be under the wing of the SDRHT who will hold the funds in trust and will manage any rebuilding. This stretch of line is considered the sole territory of the SDRHT's Mendip Mainline Project.

As to cooperation with the other S&D groups - we are doing everything we can to 'prove ourselves' and trust that at some point in the future we will be considered worthy enough to be invited! Until then I suppose we will still be regarded as non-existent ...