Author |
Topic: Portageville Bridge Update (Read 707 times) |
|
thebigham
Historian
Posts: 1250
|
I've only seen pics on Facebook.
The concrete piers/abutments are done. They are assembling the arch now.
It's hard to get pics because the whole area is closed off now. The trails to the Upper falls have been closed for re-construction.
Trains should be going over the new bridge in November!
The road under the bridge should re-open late 2018.
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
roc
Historian
Posts: 1254
|
That's quite a view!
|
|
Logged |
A smokey Alco and a good camera, nevermind the weather...
|
|
|
thebigham
Historian
Posts: 1250
|
March 2015
Click Image to Resize
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 12th, 2017, 10:18am by thebigham » |
Logged |
|
|
|
thebigham
Historian
Posts: 1250
|
June 2017
Click Image to Resize
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
thebigham
Historian
Posts: 1250
|
July 2017
Taken with a drone. Pic posted on Facebook.
On the left, part the park road has been removed. The new parking lot will be where the current bridge abutment is.
On the right, that's the former PRR Rochester branch grade under the bridges. It's the Greenway rail trail and it is closed.
Click Image to Resize
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 12th, 2017, 10:18am by thebigham » |
Logged |
|
|
|
roc
Historian
Posts: 1254
|
First, you are the man with the pics. Brilliant as always.
The new bridge looks like a lot more bridge than the spidery iron and steel of the old one. However, I wonder if the new press-stressed concrete engineering marvel will still be hosting trains in 100-plus years?
|
|
Logged |
A smokey Alco and a good camera, nevermind the weather...
|
|
|
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3813
|
Roc, you concerns are unfounded. At 100 years this new bridge should be barely broke in good. It is unlikely that the current axle loads will get much above where they are now, which is in the 286,000 to 315,000 pound load for a four axle car. The curren E80 design standard is for 80,000 pounds per axle, while 315,000 pounds for a four axle car is 78,750 pounds per axle, and this 80,000 pound per axle design is before all safety factors, impact factors, etc are added. The current bridge has been functionally obsolete for many years, and has been kept usable by an intensive inspection and maintenance program couple with severe operating restrictions.
By the way, this is a steel arch bridge. The only concrete is in the piers and deck. It appears that this will be a ballasted deck bridge instead of an open deck, as well.
Even with the end of restraints on loading and speeds, the speed will not be much if any over 35 mph due to the curve just off the west end of the bridge.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Matthew_L
Moderator
Historian
Posts: 7871
|
IIRC, NS has stated the seed limit for the new bridge will be 30 mph. While it's not 50 mph (the norm for the rest of the line), the 30 mph seed limit will be a reat improvement over the current 10 mph speed limit.
|
|
Logged |
Best wishes to all,
Matthew L
moderator- D&H, Erie Lackawanna/Erie and LA&L/B&H/WNYP
P.S. All aboard for the last train to Hammondsport!
|
|
|
roc
Historian
Posts: 1254
|
on Jul 13th, 2017, 1:13am, George_Harris wrote: (Click here for original message)Roc, you concerns are unfounded. At 100 years this new bridge should be barely broke in good. It is unlikely that the current axle loads will get much above where they are now, which is in the 286,000 to 315,000 pound load for a four axle car. The curren E80 design standard is for 80,000 pounds per axle, while 315,000 pounds for a four axle car is 78,750 pounds per axle, and this 80,000 pound per axle design is before all safety factors, impact factors, etc are added. The current bridge has been functionally obsolete for many years, and has been kept usable by an intensive inspection and maintenance program couple with severe operating restrictions.
By the way, this is a steel arch bridge. The only concrete is in the piers and deck. It appears that this will be a ballasted deck bridge instead of an open deck, as well.
Even with the end of restraints on loading and speeds, the speed will not be much if any over 35 mph due to the curve just off the west end of the bridge. |
|
Not so much concerned as skeptical. I've lived long enough to see many interstate and urban bridges replaced, some more than once. Yes, in general, railroad bridges tend to last "forever." That is, sometimes even washouts get shoved back into place, reinforced, and serve on.
I appreciate the education on the new bridge's specs, etc. My favorite word pairings are "I don't know," and "That's cool!"
Thanks for bringing the cool.
|
|
Logged |
A smokey Alco and a good camera, nevermind the weather...
|
|
|
centercab
Historian
Posts: 274
|
Will the old bridge be left intact and possibly become a "grand lookout" for sightseers at the gorge? Will it remain NS property? If so not likely it will survive.
|
|
Logged |
Love that Solyndra!
|
|
|
roc
Historian
Posts: 1254
|
The old bridge will remain as a tourist attraction. A road and parking will be constructed to facilitate access. As noted by Chris, the parking lot will be located on the East (?) abutment/approach of the old bridge.
|
|
Logged |
A smokey Alco and a good camera, nevermind the weather...
|
|
|
Henry
Historian
Posts: 6097
|
on Jul 14th, 2017, 2:42am, roc wrote: (Click here for original message)| The old bridge will remain as a tourist attraction. A road and parking will be constructed to facilitate access. As noted by Chris, the parking lot will be located on the East (?) abutment/approach of the old bridge. |
|
Is that a 100% done deal? I threw my dad's ashes off of that bridge back in July of '97 so it is very important to me.
Henry
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 14th, 2017, 3:16am by Henry » |
Logged |
|
|
|
roc
Historian
Posts: 1254
|
on Jul 14th, 2017, 3:15am, Henry wrote: (Click here for original message)
Is that a 100% done deal? I threw my dad's ashes off of that bridge back in July of '97 so it is very important to me.
Henry
|
|
I dug for about a half an hour and couldn't find a forum post or news story saying the old bridge would remain. I did, however, find multiple references to plans to remove the old bridge once the new arch span bridge is completed.
I remember reading it would be kept. However, without proof, my claim should be taken with a full covered hopper of salt. Perhaps a unit train of NaCl would be a more proportioned measure…
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 14th, 2017, 4:53pm by roc » |
Logged |
A smokey Alco and a good camera, nevermind the weather...
|
|
|
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3813
|
Keeping the old bridge?
There was quite a bit of discussion on that a couple of years ago, but it appears that it will be coming down. All those that thought that keeping it and converting it to a walkway was a wonderful idea and should happen kept their hands firmly in pocket when asked to put some money where their mouth was. My understanding was that NS would have been happy to have sold it, and I think for little if any more than the net scrap value if there is any, but no way would they have been willing to let it remain in place under their ownership. Think of the liability they would have if anyone fell off it if walking on it was considered allowable. Also, at one time New York was known as having the highest or near highest taxes on railroad property. This would also help explain the rapid dissapearance of many stations and other railroad facilities as they ceased to be used and could not be easily sold. Never forget the old saying, "The power to tax is the power to destroy."
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 14th, 2017, 11:09pm by George_Harris » |
Logged |
|
|
|
roc
Historian
Posts: 1254
|
"The power to tax is the power to destroy."
Oh really? The countries with the happiest people, that live the longest lives, are most satisfied with their lives, that smoke and drink more than we do, eat fattier foods, with higher levels of upward (and downward) mobility, that get universal world class single-payer healthcare and education, with long paid vacation time they actually utilize are those of Northern Europe where taxes are "high" (ie working from the assumption that all of the chart topping life satisfaction they enjoy is of low or no value).
Moreover, if you're going to quote Daniel Webster, at least get it right, "An UNLIMITED power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."
Notice the emphasis added, all important qualifying adjective, "unlimited."
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 16th, 2017, 7:48pm by roc » |
Logged |
A smokey Alco and a good camera, nevermind the weather...
|
|
|
railwatcher
Moderator
Historian
Posts: 838
|
The topic is the bridge, that is not part of the LA&L family of railroads. We keep this live here due its close proximity and the added discussion of the WNYP being used for a reroute choice for the southern tier line. We will keep on topic, thank you. All politics aside.
|
|
Logged |
Live from Avon, NY. Rail serviced by the LA&L.
|
|
|
George_Harris
Historian
Posts: 3813
|
Two things:
To roc: Do not underatand what caused you to take offense at my abbreviated quote of the statement on taxation, and I would like to mention that the misquote as you call it is frequently the way it is stated. There was certainly no intent to raise any political issues, and I try to avoid any discussion of things political here.
To all, There is a thread on this bridge, which is on the ex-Erie Railroad mainline, which is now a NS mainline across New York State. The thread, which is now on its fourth page can be found under:
Physical Plant - Track, Structures, and Signals
Railroad Infranstructure
Portageville High Bridge Replacement? Letchworth Park, NY
http://forums.railfan.net/forums.cgi?board=Infrastructure;action=display;num=1287381338;start=60
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Henry
Historian
Posts: 6097
|
I had no problem with George saying "The power to tax is the power to destroy" as it is precisely the reason we have lost countless historic RR buildings. As far as politics goes, we certainly didn't need to be chastised with a blast of propaganda that would have made Karl Marx proud.
Henry
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Railfan.net Forums
Reply 
EMail Topic
Print
letch.jpg - 140058 Bytes
