New Civil Engineer Civil engineering and construction news and jobs from New Civil Engineer
The estimated cost of reversing the controversial infilling of a bridge in Great Musgrave, Cumbria, has tripled, it can be revealed.
National Highways confirmed to NCE that the cost of reversing the infilling alone will come in between £80,000 to £90,000.
In order to bring the route under the structure back in to full use, National Highways said that it would cost between £316,000 and £431,000. That includes the cost of infill reversal, repair costs, masonry repairs to the bridge, strengthening, maintenance and examinations.
National Highways confirmed the figures after they were revealed on Twitter by campaigners pushing for the infilling to be reversed.
The 159-year-old masonry arched bridge in the heart of the Cumbrian countryside was filled in by National Highways contractors in July, with the action heavily criticised by engineers and the general public.
The £90,000 estimate to reverse infilling is three times more than the upper figure quoted by DfT under secretary of state Baroness Vere just two months ago. In August, Vere told the House of Commons that the cost of reversing the infilling would come in between £10,000 and £30,000.
National Highways Historical Railways Estate director Richard Marshall said: “We asked contractors to provide estimated costs associated with bringing the route under Great Musgrave bridge back into use. This information is necessary should a viable future use for the track bed beneath the bridge be forthcoming.
“The infill works are reversible and National Highways is commitment to reversing the infilling at no cost should a feasible heritage railway line which has all necessary approvals start work.”
The HRE Group revealed the figures after attending a Stakeholder Advisory Forum held on Friday (8 October) at which they were present.
The group has, however, cast doubt on the validity of the costings. One tweet from The HRE Group – made up of engineers, sustainable transport advocates and greenway developers – adds: “Their costings are contrived for convenience. When they wanted folk to believe that removal was easy, the costs involved were ‘nominal’.
“Now they want Eden District Council to believe that removal would cost a fortune, hence £431K. They're untrustworthy and disreputable.”
The Great Musgrave bridge infilling has now been seeded with grass
Jacobs acts as the “sole provider” (designer) for the Historical Railways Estate and has recently been reappointed for another seven years. Six contractors support Jacobs in carrying out any work, including Dyer & Butler and Balfour Beatty.
There has been similar backlashes to planned works in West Scotland, East Sussex and the South Downs during the last six months.
Like what you've read? To receive New Civil Engineer's daily and weekly newsletters click here.
Why am I not surprised? Is this what was always the aim?
National Highways are playing fast and loose with costs. They have been shown to be unsuitable custodians of the UK’s historic bridge stock, both physically and on paper. The BRB Property Board did a better job and one wonders whether a similar, ring fenced, group within Network Rail would be a better way of managing disused railway structures?
National Highways do not have to be “untrustworthy and disreputable” as suggested, but having got themselves into a corner, the contractors are able to take advantage of them. The episode has been a waste of public money.
It really is time that the UK wide outsourcing of engineering to two or three multinationals was brought to an end and all responsibility taken back in house using smaller local engineers with their roots in the community. Perhaps its time “leveling up” included localisation of engineering support.