"How is this possible?" Fiona Kolbinger shocks Strava with 428km ride averaging 30.5km/h; Cav's TDF return?; 'Mr Loophole' plugs tabard petition on Radio 4; Cycling DnB DJ makes pre-match coverage; Railway bridge infilling furore + more on the live blog

But perhaps bored by some pointless trolling which followed it?

It's insidious. It almost does not matter who "wins" the debate here. The question debated sets the agenda. The best the cycling lobby can hope for in such an agenda is to avoid "taking a hit". It would take a debater of rare talent to turn this question on its head and actually reframe the debate. But the BBC can fein ignorance and say they had "for and against", impartiality is served.

Sriracha wrote:

It's insidious. It almost does not matter who "wins" the debate here. The question debated sets the agenda. The best the cycling lobby can hope for in such an agenda is to avoid "taking a hit". It would take a debater of rare talent to turn this question on its head and actually reframe the debate. But the BBC can fein ignorance and say they had "for and against", impartiality is served.

There was another article on R4 this evening (approximately 17:22) about the traffic rebounding since covid, with deliveries, public transport and driving discussed for about 6 or 7 minutes, but guess which mode of transport didn't even get a mention, despite the fact that it has mushroomed in the last year?*

*No prizes.

Sriracha wrote:

But the BBC can fein ignorance and say they had "for and against", impartiality is served.

Isn't it time that all the cycling groups got together and made an official complaint to the BBC governers?  This has gone on for far too long, forty years at least, and isn't getting any better.

No, the last thing cycling groups need is to ruin their credibility by saying insane shit like 'the BBC is biased against us'. Get a grip.

Cycling groups should probably work on influencing rather than bashing.

But let's see which other groups claim BBC bias and how it's going for them...

Brexiteers: got their wish but still seem to want more

SNP: near-monopoly of power in Scotland

Right wing of the Tory party: pretty happy at the moment, with immense influence over the past 10+ years

R Murdoch esq.

All the right of centre press: still going despite the headwinds the industry faces (and conveniently hypocritical about Bashir)

I can't actually think of a group that has suffered by bashing the BBC. What it really needs is honest feedback and a few reminders of the need for balance, but there are plenty of people who'd be glad to see the back of an organisation that is at least broadly aimed at impartiality.

TheBillder wrote:

I can't actually think of a group that has suffered by bashing the BBC. What it really needs is honest feedback and a few reminders of the need for balance, but there are plenty of people who'd be glad to see the back of an organisation that is at least broadly aimed at impartiality.

I can think of a group that has suffered a bashing by the BBC;Labour under Corbyn.

As someone who has given the BBC feedback for something like forty years, with very pointed reminders about balance and bias, I can assure you that it is a complete, total and utter waste of time.  As Kate Adie said in her book, the BBC complaints system exists for the sole purpose of exonerating its employees.

Dave Dave wrote:

No, the last thing cycling groups need is to ruin their credibility by saying insane shit like 'the BBC is biased'. Get a grip.

Siri, what's the definition of Poe's Law?

What it is time for, is for any cycling group asked onto public media to put forward a coherent, properly prepared spokesperson. The R4 segment was cringeworthy from the pro cycling point of view and Nick Freeman should be the easiest shill for the car lobby to destroy in any argument surrounding road safety and risks to pedestrians.

Interesting point... I've only seen two videos, but:

She's not really interacting with the device, is she? Presumably the two cameras are mounted on the handlebar and she starts them at the beginning of the ride, and she just chats away and edits them later. So technically it's more like the helmet/handlebar camera videos (without all the swearing and shouting in the UK). She's not looking at a screen or manipulating the device.

That she talks about world politics is not really an issue, we all think about all sorts of things or chat (if in a group) when we cycle on quiet paths and it doesn't stop us from paying attention, and you can see her interacting with other road users and the environment just like any cyclist would. Presumably when something on the roads needs more of her attention she would intuitively stop talking and edit that out later.

Unfortunately the petition doesn't explain what's wrong or what should be done differently. By the sound of it, restoring these bridges properly costs a lot. Infilling is cheap, and removing it doesn't significantly add to the cost of restoring them later if necessary. It may even be cheaper to infill the bridge and add a new cycle bridge over the road, given the different loads involved.

Are they actually blocking existing routes? That would be very odd, I agree.

@Dave Dave.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

Its my understanding that the bridges generally arent in immediate need of repairing and thats the main reason HE are being called out for abuse of their emergency powers.   They are also applying a higher than necessary (or existing) weight limit as an excuse for "danger".  It smacks of a quick and dirty fix for a longer term problem.

Also I believe most of the potential routes go "though" the infilled bits, so its going to be a lot harder/impossible to safely seperate existing bridge stone/concrete from infill concrete after the fact.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

@Dave Dave.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

Its my understanding that the bridges generally arent in immediate need of repairing and thats the main reason HE are being called out for abuse of their emergency powers.   They are also applying a higher than necessary (or existing) weight limit as an excuse for "danger".  It smacks of a quick and dirty fix for a longer term problem.

Also I believe most of the potential routes go "though" the infilled bits, so its going to be a lot harder/impossible to safely seperate existing bridge stone/concrete from infill concrete after the fact.

What is the supposed motivation for HE engaging in the conspiracy you suggest?

As for removing infill later, it's largely compacted aggregate. It really won't be particularly difficult to do. Digging out concrete is harder, but not by enough to matter on the scale of work involved in restoring a bridge.

Is it possible that our disagreement is based on you drastically underestimating the amount of work involved in fixing a masonry bridge?

GIYF Highways England Musgrave bridge... http://www.railwayramblers.org.uk/10th-jun-2021-latest-press-release-fro...

Awavey wrote:

GIYF Highways England Musgrave bridge... http://www.railwayramblers.org.uk/10th-jun-2021-latest-press-release-fro...

"Repointing would cost around £15-20K, whilst Highways England’s infilling work has a contract value of £124K."

ROFL. So this entire story is based on someone dropping a couple of zeros from the cost of restoration. That's a laughably wrong figure. 250k-2.5m is about the right ballpark; depends what needs doing, but obviously it's not just repointing (which alone costs far more than infill).

Dave Dave wrote:

Unfortunately the petition doesn't explain what's wrong or what should be done differently. By the sound of it, restoring these bridges properly costs a lot. Infilling is cheap, and removing it doesn't significantly add to the cost of restoring them later if necessary. It may even be cheaper to infill the bridge and add a new cycle bridge over the road, given the different loads involved.

Are they actually blocking existing routes? That would be very odd, I agree.

the road bridge goes over the redundant railway, and now any future cycle route should go over the road? climing 5m out of the cutting and then a further 5.5m to clear the road.

seems very inefficient.

Bridge in the photo looks perfectly sound in not in danger of collapse, unless highways england has an agenda for increasing the weight limit of the bridge (on what appears to be a small rural lane) to allow larger vehicles.

And breaking out any infill is likely to have more impact on the strength of the bridge than leaving it alone, meaning no route wil be possible in the future.

It's a scandal that these transport corridors are being lost.

"Bridge in the photo looks perfectly sound in not in danger of collapse"

Lol. Structural engineering is a bit harder than that.

The petition mentions that the bridge needs major works.

I don't think digging out infill is hard. Not compared to fixing the bridge properly.

Thing is, we have these legacy bridges where it was cheaper and easier to pass a train under a road, and now the train isn't there anymore. It is far cheaper to turn the bridge into an embankment and send cyclists over the top. Going up and down 5m isn't a problem with nice long approaches.

It just doesn't seem to make sense to choose a very expensive option instead of far cheaper ones that achieve the same things (to a close approximation). It is daft to spend large amounts of money now just in case in future there might be a reason to, when it's no more expensive to spend tge money then.

Dave Dave wrote:

"Bridge in the photo looks perfectly sound in not in danger of collapse" Lol. Structural engineering is a bit harder than that. The petition mentions that the bridge needs major works. I don't think digging out infill is hard. Not compared to fixing the bridge properly. Thing is, we have these legacy bridges where it was cheaper and easier to pass a train under a road, and now the train isn't there anymore. It is far cheaper to turn the bridge into an embankment and send cyclists over the top. Going up and down 5m isn't a problem with nice long approaches. It just doesn't seem to make sense to choose a very expensive option instead of far cheaper ones that achieve the same things (to a close approximation). It is daft to spend large amounts of money now just in case in future there might be a reason to, when it's no more expensive to spend tge money then.

just going up 5m, means the cycle route now has a level crossing with the road, where currently it could have grade seperation.

If the bridge is not sound, I do not believe that an aggregate infill below the bridge is an adequate long term solution. Concreting the space could be, but then it would be much mroe difficult to remove.

As to the justification, perhaps short term money saving and avoiding additional transport routes added to their manintenance burden.

Once these routes are lost they will never come back into service.

wycombewheeler wrote:

just going up 5m, means the cycle route now has a level crossing with the road, where currently it could have grade seperation.

Yes, silly of me. Up to double that. Although that's the worst-case scenario, and it's still a comparable gradient to major London bridges with reasonable-length approaches.

I wonder if there's a compromise involving infill packed around a new, cyclist-sized concrete arch.

wycombewheeler wrote:

If the bridge is not sound, I do not believe that an aggregate infill below the bridge is an adequate long term solution. Concreting the space could be, but then it would be much mroe difficult to remove.

Evidently structural engineering is counter-intuitive here. A big pile of gravel, with sides banked at less than the angle of repose, is very stable indeed. They don't just pack the archway, they bank it up either side too. Doing so is radically cheaper than fixing and maintaining the bridge.

If anyone's interested, there's a very readable introductory book on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Structures-Things-Dont-Fall-Down/dp/0306812835

Dave Dave wrote:

I wonder if there's a compromise involving infill packed around a new, cyclist-sized concrete arch.

If they were doing that I wouldn't complain. When we are only talking about infilling a bridge rather than a long tunnel it could potentially be formed from a relatively small number of 2.4m precast rings

Dave Dave wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

just going up 5m, means the cycle route now has a level crossing with the road, where currently it could have grade seperation.

Yes, silly of me. Up to double that. Although that's the worst-case scenario, and it's still a comparable gradient to major London bridges with reasonable-length approaches.

I wonder if there's a compromise involving infill packed around a new, cyclist-sized concrete arch.

wycombewheeler wrote:

If the bridge is not sound, I do not believe that an aggregate infill below the bridge is an adequate long term solution. Concreting the space could be, but then it would be much mroe difficult to remove.

Evidently structural engineering is counter-intuitive here. A big pile of gravel, with sides banked at less than the angle of repose, is very stable indeed. They don't just pack the archway, they bank it up either side too. Doing so is radically cheaper than fixing and maintaining the bridge.

If anyone's interested, there's a very readable introductory book on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Structures-Things-Dont-Fall-Down/dp/0306812835

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/infilling-historic-bridges-is-so...

Didn't seem to have gone down well with the publication of the institution of civil engineers

wycombewheeler wrote:

Dave Dave wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

just going up 5m, means the cycle route now has a level crossing with the road, where currently it could have grade seperation.

Yes, silly of me. Up to double that. Although that's the worst-case scenario, and it's still a comparable gradient to major London bridges with reasonable-length approaches.

I wonder if there's a compromise involving infill packed around a new, cyclist-sized concrete arch.

wycombewheeler wrote:

If the bridge is not sound, I do not believe that an aggregate infill below the bridge is an adequate long term solution. Concreting the space could be, but then it would be much mroe difficult to remove.

Evidently structural engineering is counter-intuitive here. A big pile of gravel, with sides banked at less than the angle of repose, is very stable indeed. They don't just pack the archway, they bank it up either side too. Doing so is radically cheaper than fixing and maintaining the bridge.

If anyone's interested, there's a very readable introductory book on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Structures-Things-Dont-Fall-Down/dp/0306812835

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/infilling-historic-bridges-is-so... Didn't seem to have gone down well with the publication of the institution of civil engineers

And there's this, in the Grauniad:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jul/21/highways-england-may-hav...

In some cases such as the Bradford to Halifax tunnel it is because HE are responsible for the structure and pumping out water that enters the tunnel this is very small cost but comes from HE budget. The cost of infill is far greater but removes the need for inspections and checking equipment. I do not know why they are being so irresponsible when they know the structures will be developed for other uses it is probably as they have argued for a budget to carry out the work and must use it for this purpose. They are now a 'semi-private' company whose shares are owned by the Government ? with a five year plan and seem very dogmatic irrespective of the cost to others or damage that any actions will create.

nikkispoke wrote:

In some cases such as the Bradford to Halifax tunnel it is because HE are responsible for the structure and pumping out water that enters the tunnel this is very small cost but comes from HE budget. The cost of infill is far greater but removes the need for inspections and checking equipment.

Quite. Ongoing costs for restoring the bridge are a big part of what makes it expensive.

nikkispoke wrote:

I do not know why they are being so irresponsible when they know the structures will be developed for other uses it is probably as they have argued for a budget to carry out the work and must use it for this purpose. They are now a 'semi-private' company whose shares are owned by the Government ? with a five year plan and seem very dogmatic irrespective of the cost to others or damage that any actions will create.

I've already said I don't think they are being irresponsible, because this doesn't add significantly to the cost of doing something else later. And I wonder if their mandate permits doing anything else? It seems pretty clear that an unbiased comparison of the costs vastly favours this approach. 

I'm pretty sure HE's structure is analogous to Network Rail (and other similar infrastructure bodies). They are an arm's-length government-owned company. Setting it up that way is about management philosophies (and/or politics), not ownership.

We've seen that the campaigners against the work are drastically underestimating the costs of what they want, so there's no real mystery. It's much, much cheaper in the long run to do this now, even if it means digging out the infill later.