On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:07:01 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:19 -0600,
wrote:

Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble.
LSWR jerry building?

The spandrels were always filled with rubble.

Next question?

Now that it's failed, does that make it a cockup spandrel?


Trust you to come up with that. ;-)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
J. Chisholm wrote on 19 November 2009 12:13:06 ...
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:14:48 +0000, "J. Chisholm"
wrote:
I don't go with 'constant change' theory. More like a typical
foundation that has been undermined by a particular rainfall event.

That's precisely why I stated "It is probably a result of scour under
the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water."

You obviously didn't bother to read that. However, you quoted it in
your reply.
Do you make a habit of replying to postings you cannot be bothered to
read? Why?

Sorry. No need to be agressive... I read the last para which implied a
different mode of failure,

But the "last para" was in response to my speculation about what led to
the earlier brickwork replacement at the top of the arch, i.e. a different
event to the recent collapse.

Incidentally, was the rain in the Feltham area really that extreme last
week? (I was several hundred miles away at the time.)

There is another photo, of unsupported track, presumably above a point
further along the tunnel, at

http://rail-news.com/wp-content/uplo...Feltham-v2.jpg

(The report containing that photo is at
http://rail-news.com/2009/11/17/100-...-flood-damage/ )

Now at
http://rail-news.com/2009/11/19/100-...damage/--David Biddulph

"David Biddulph" groups [at] biddulph.org.uk wrote in message
...
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
J. Chisholm wrote on 19 November 2009 12:13:06 ...
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:14:48 +0000, "J. Chisholm"
wrote:
I don't go with 'constant change' theory. More like a typical
foundation that has been undermined by a particular rainfall event.

That's precisely why I stated "It is probably a result of scour under
the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water."

You obviously didn't bother to read that. However, you quoted it in
your reply.
Do you make a habit of replying to postings you cannot be bothered to
read? Why?

Sorry. No need to be agressive... I read the last para which implied a
different mode of failure,

But the "last para" was in response to my speculation about what led to
the earlier brickwork replacement at the top of the arch, i.e. a
different event to the recent collapse.

Incidentally, was the rain in the Feltham area really that extreme last
week? (I was several hundred miles away at the time.)

There is another photo, of unsupported track, presumably above a point
further along the tunnel, at

http://rail-news.com/wp-content/uplo...Feltham-v2.jpg

(The report containing that photo is at
http://rail-news.com/2009/11/17/100-...-flood-damage/ )

Now at
http://rail-news.com/2009/11/19/100-...damage/--David
Biddulph


It's done it again. :-(
I wish OE didn't keep gluing my sig to the end of a link.
Should be
http://rail-news.com/2009/11/19/100-...damage/--David BiddulphRowing web pages athttp://www.biddulph.org.uk/

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:19 -0600,
wrote:

Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with
rubble. LSWR jerry building?

The spandrels were always filled with rubble.

Next question?

Now that it's failed, does that make it a cockup spandrel?

LOL!

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

A good quality picture of the failure has appeared on the Network
Rail site now:

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...tional_info/Fe
ltham_Bridge_Nov09.JPG

Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble.
LSWR jerry building?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:18:36 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:
I wonder why it was necessary to renew so much of the brickwork at the
top of the arch (different colour bricks obvious in photo). This is
pure speculation, but I'm wondering whether there was some earlier
instability of the foundations that resulted in some movement higher up,
which was just patched up rather than properly investigated.

More likely, a combination of gradual long term settlement of the
structure (it appears to be very old) and frost damage to the
brickwork.

Elsewhere on the South Western Division, I've seen an ex-LSWR bridge where
the facing bricks have been replaced (untidily) with modern ones in just
this way. The old ones were showing frost damage (not bad for 150 years)
but the structure appears sound. This is just replacement of individual
bricks, not whole courses.

I get the feeling it's a one-size-fits-all replacement programme, hence the
miscoloured bricks.

Theo

In article ,
(Theo Markettos) wrote:

Elsewhere on the South Western Division, I've seen an ex-LSWR bridge
where the facing bricks have been replaced (untidily) with modern ones
in just this way. The old ones were showing frost damage (not bad for
150 years) but the structure appears sound. This is just replacement
of individual bricks, not whole courses.

I get the feeling it's a one-size-fits-all replacement programme,
hence the
miscoloured bricks.

It's probable that bricks of the original colour aren't available. For
some reason that's a big problem these days. We can't even get matching
bricks for a housing scheme near me built in 1975, let alone matching 150
year old ones.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Latest report is that normal service will resume tomorrow morning:

http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/eng...9548b8faaad06\
961215

Network Rail's press release shows the track work in progress, I can't work
out
from the pic if they've laid two tracks or just the one. Can anyone clarify?

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...ID=4827&NewsA\
reaID=2&SearchCategoryID=8

Paul S

On Nov 22, 4:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Latest report is that normal service will resume tomorrow morning:

http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/eng...a1c9e4a1d13495...
961215

Network Rail's press release shows the track work in progress, I can't work
out
from the pic if they've laid two tracks or just the one. Can anyone clarify?

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...aspx?ReleaseID...
reaID=2&SearchCategoryID=8

Paul S

Try this link:

http://tinyurl.com/yfhofpb

CJB

"CJB" wrote in message
...
On Nov 22, 4:27 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Latest report is that normal service will resume tomorrow morning:

http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/eng...a1c9e4a1d13495...
961215

Network Rail's press release shows the track work in progress, I can't
work
out
from the pic if they've laid two tracks or just the one. Can anyone
clarify?

I'll let you know tomorrow. Looks like the commute will take a little
longer than usual, but not as long as it did last week.
: )