overcrossing/trestle inspection rate?

First off, a bit annoying I can't enter a message here with an Ipad... The site wouldn't take the text input in the message section.

Anyway, we were on a trip up the CA coast and visited the Ocean Park area outside of Lompoc. There is a train overcrossing there that leads on to the Vendenburg AFB and up the coast. At the time I thought it was no longer used due to its condition - but then I discovered it is currently used for the coast-running trains. Man, the metal components of it are totally crap! What used to be maybe 3/8" thick is now 1/4" thick - maybe worse if you were to scrape off all the rust. I would think these bridges should be maintained just like ships. Who inspects them and how often? What are the criteria? I saw no sign of rebuilding or improvements. It all looked old and unreliable.

Barry

Appearance does not equal ability to perform its function.

Is your 3/8 to 1/4 by measurement or by eyeball?

In general, railroad bridges are maintained by ability to perform with little attention to appearance. There are inspection requirements. I don't have what the UP standards are, but don't know when they last had a bridge collapse.

Railroad bridges designed and built during the steam era were in general stronger than necessary for the load at the time due, among other things some of the difficulties pre computer in calculating forces in members, and in particular in connections.

Hint: The oldest railroad bridge over the lower Mississippi was opened in 1892 and is still in service and does not have weight restrictions that affect normal coal or container trains. I think there are restrictions on short cars with heavy axle loads. The loads it carries today are far beyond those for which it was initially designed, but you had better believe that the forces in all members were carefully analyzed before the current loads were permitted. Note this is a single track bridge nearly 120 years old originally designed to carry 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 steamers pulling freight cars weighing about half what they do now that is carrying unit coal trains and double stack container trains.

While politicians may get credit for and get their names on a beautiful new highway bridge to replace one deemed deteriorated, the management of a railroad that lets a major bridge collapse or deteriorate beyond usability will probably find all involved from the bridge inspector up to through at least the Chief Engineer unemployed, and if collapse can be put in the house of top management refusing to spend the money to keep it functional likely even the president of the company may find himself in the street looking for a job.

George Harris said:

I don't have what the UP standards are, but don't know when they last had a bridge collapse.

Click to expand...

Seems to me George that the last bridge that the UP had come down on them was the approach bridge to Sacramento over the American River several years ago. And that collapse had nothing to do with poor design or neglecting a bridge. It was caused solely by the fire that burned the bridge to the ground, since it was on wooden pilings. Fire is clearly not something that is a result of poor maintenance.

Prior to that I think a few years earlier they had one swept away in a major flood, again something that has little to do with maintenance and more to do with the wrath of mother nature.

It is likely that degradation of such a support structure is gradual and affects the structure rather equally. Given this, there is the risk that at some point the whole structure is compromised. When you don't keep such a structure up to some standard quality level you don't know where it stands. There is a weak point but where is it? Do you know when this will be? What is the plan then - shut the whole rail system down to replace this and other such bridges all at once? Poor way to run a railroad...

I should have taken photos of the structure to support my concern. These structures should be maintained to an obvious level of goodness - like I hope and expect our freeway overcrossings are. If you don't paint exposed iron/steel it will rust and flake - more rapidly in such a marine environment. You could be right that there hasn't been an issue yet - but I am suggesting that if this is the design and maintainance mentality we are in for a coastal RR shutdown in the next 20 years.

Barry

Bklein said:

If you don't paint exposed iron/steel it will rust and flake - more rapidly in such a marine environment.

Click to expand...

A few words: ASTM A588, ASTM A709

also look up www.aisc.org/assets/0/1209478/1209480/138fa8c809b7c-4d3d-8597-39272b6a1ec4.pdf

If I managed to get something wrong in that long chain of an address, then just search A Primer on Weathering Steel. Add NSBA or National Steel Bridge Alliance if need be to zero in more closely.

All this to say rusty does not equal imminent failure, or even inadequate maintenance. I have seen nicely painted bridge, on roads not railroads, that had serious structural issues, but they looked pretty.

Yes, railroad bridges do fail, but it is rare. There is the recent bridge collapse between Indianapolis and Cincinatti. The cause is yet to be determined. There was a freight train involved, but whether the collapse caused the derailment or the derailment caused the collapse or that there was some other cause of failure is unknown at this time.

One of the tornados in Alabama a few months back took out a steel bridge on the ex L&N line just east of Tuscaloosa Alabama. Aside from all else, being down in a valley as the bridge was is usually considered the best place to be when tornados are out and about. There were several bridges taken out, both railroad and highway, by Katrina and other hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast.

You are making the assumption that the type of steel used is the "weathering" type. This type seems to have been introduced in the 70's and according to Wikipedia does poorly in marine environments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering_steel

(BTW, your link doesn't work and a search of the site only came up with reports that were not free for the public to obtain.)

Also, from other Googling I see that high strength bolts were introduced around 20 years ago. I don't know the age of this particular bridge.

Take a look at this:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/t514022.cfm

The Ocean Park overcross is just the type of overcross they say not to rely upon or use weathering steel.

Here is a photo of the bridge in question:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=122687&nseq=11

I found a site that seems to indicate the state of maintanence of CA train bridges. I don't recognize this one in the list though. Certainly wasn't any paint that I could see (and too late for it anyway!).

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/pci_state.pdf

Barry

Bklein said:

First off, a bit annoying I can't enter a message here with an Ipad... The site wouldn't take the text input in the message section.

Barry

Click to expand...

Suggest you contact Apple. It is their problem. Not the site's problem.

Bklein said:

You are making the assumption that the type of steel used is the "weathering" type. This type seems to have been introduced in the 70's and according to Wikipedia does poorly in marine environments:

Click to expand...

Weathering steel is "weathering" because of its alloy makeup is such that the rust clings wholly or mostly. It is not absolutely 100% because concrete piers under this steel will develop rust streaks. A lot of old bridges have the the property to varying extents even if the metallurgical make up was not set for that purpose.

We are actually getting away from the initial issue which is the structural integrity and durability of the bridge you saw. To answer that would require inspection and analysis by a prfessional bridge engineer. Something that has probably been done in the not too distant past.

The average age of steel railroad bridges is somewhere above 50 years, and there are many out there that are over 100 years old. I do not know exact numbers, but I would suspect that the Steel Structures Committee of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Associaton does either exactly or close. Generally when a steel railroad bridge is replaced or reinforced it is because of the increase in loading far above that for which the structure was originally designed, not because it has deteriorated beyond usability. That is the reason that Union Pacific replaced the Kate Shelly bridge a few years back. And, by the way, the used steel that had been removed from another bridge that had been taken down because the line was abandoned.

As to inspection: There is a specific standard in the code of federal regulations: 49CFR237, titled Bridge Safety Standards

The first sentence of the code states:

This part prescribes minimum safety requirements for the management of railroad bridges that support one or more tracks.

Click to expand...

Further down:

(a) Each bridge management program shall include a provision for scheduling an inspection for each bridge in railroad service at least once in each calendar year, with not more than 540 days between any successive inspections.

Click to expand...

For a little light reading, you can look it up and read the rest of it. The entire CFR can be accessed online.

I stick to trains that also run freight. May be slower but those really heavy freight trains test the bridges and track for me. :giggle: :giggle: :giggle:

Gabbytony said:

Bklein said:

First off, a bit annoying I can't enter a message here with an Ipad... The site wouldn't take the text input in the message section.

Barry

Click to expand...

Suggest you contact Apple. It is their problem. Not the site's problem.

Click to expand...

Nope, I post from my iPad and iPhone all the time. PEBKAC.

Hmmm. I could sign up as a forum member, start to make a new thread and make a title, but when I tried to enter text into the message section it just wouldn't take it.

Looking at the CA site I referenced, this particular bridge could have been made in either the 40's or the 60's. It is on the Santa Ynez river.

It would be good to see a site that gives the expected lifetime for such bridges. That site stated the average age was around 40 years. In regards to inspections I found one inspection manual on the net that indicated a 2 year minimum inspection period. But it also seemed to push all the responsibility of inspection and maintenance to Amtrak. It looks from the CA site that this particular bridge is definitely one of the older ones. I just hope the guys responsible are responsible.

Barry

OK, I have looked at the picture and your information links.

I am skipping your links on the material because none of that is news to me.

1. The CA DOT link you referenced covers HIGHWAY bridges on the state highway system. Therefore, this bridge will not be on it. This bridge is owned and maintained by the Union Pacific Railroad Company.

2. From the picture, I see absolutely nothing to worry about in this bridge. I could ask one of the bridge guys where I work, but I see no need to bother.

Barry, if this is one of your major concerns in life, you have a uniquely trouble free life.

Looking at the pictures leads me to suspect the following:

1. This is not the first bridge these girders have inhabited. In other words, they were first part of a different bridge and made part of this one when it was rebuilt some years back.

I would guess from the appearance of the concrete in the pile cap that these pile caps have been in place less than 20 years. I think the steel portions are considerably older, likely something like 50 to 90 years old.

Looking at the pile cap and columns, I would say that these columns are drilled in shafts placed one on each side of the bridge that preceeded this one. That way they could be placed without having to work through the then existing structure. The cap was then cast in place underneath that existing structure. These plate girders that you see were then brought in and set in place one at a time during a series of brief as practical track shutdowns.

If I have gone wrong with any of this guesswork on the age of the components and the replacement process, I hope somebody will correct me.

After this, I intend to say no more, as if that has been said is not sufficient to put your concerns to rest I have no idea what would be. You have chosen to worry about a non-problem.

Well, at least read the federal (fhwa) link. And don't run the highway vs train crossing arguement by me again - steel is steel.

My concern was after looking at the steel construction close up. I am sure there is a point at where you seeing this you would be concerned - but you are not giving me any clues as to where this would be Instead you are giving me this attitude like "it meets spec" or "looks fine from here". If you look into those specs you find that corrosion rate and fatigue are looked at in minute detail - but the bridge inspections don't seem to be held to this detail. I do have other things to do in my life other than make this my life's mission. This is the kind of thing that will raise its ugly head someday, the media will get ahold of it, and well, you know where it goes from there. The Gaviota crossing seems to be created in 1909 - wonder how it looks close up... I agree we can close the thread at this point - unless you happen to make a trip out there someday and have more to add then.

George Harris said:

Weathering steel is "weathering" because of its alloy makeup is such that the rust clings wholly or mostly. It is not absolutely 100% because concrete piers under this steel will develop rust streaks. A lot of old bridges have the the property to varying extents even if the metallurgical make up was not set for that purpose.

Click to expand...

Most of that staining occurs during the first year or two of the life of the weathering steel while the corrosive coating "ripens." Once the corrosion is aged, it is reasonably hard and does not run off.

A good example of regular steel behaving like weathering steel is some of the Amtrak catenary structures. Many of those structures were installed in the 1930's (long before weathering steel) and a good many of those have not seen paint in at least 50 years. They are heavily rusted, but the corrosion is stable and the structures are fine. I often joked with my Amtrak counterparts by thanking them for pioneering the development of weathering steel by simply not painting structures. They said they were happy to help the industry.

To address the original issue, old railroad bridges can look ugly but are generally still more than capable of doing the job. Not only were the original railroad design loadings heavy, but old railroad engineering was typically very conservative. Even some loss of section does not necessarily result in the bridge being derated. The recent CSX bridge failure in Indiana was likely caused by the derailment, not the other way around.

Bklein said:

Well, at least read the federal (fhwa) link. And don't run the highway vs train crossing arguement by me again - steel is steel..

Click to expand...

How about reading what I said. I said that this bridge will not be in the CA link you gave because it is not their bridge. The do not own it. They do not maintan it. Therefore, Caltrans as a highway agency does not care about this bridge. In no way was I trying to say that steel was not steel because it was railroad steel instead of highway steel. I was saying that appearance is of much less significance to a railroad than to a highway agency. Look at the FRA requirements. This bridge does get frequently inspected, and that by people who know a lot more about what it takes to ensure a functional bridge than either one of us, unless you are a structural engineer, which I suspect is not the case.

Looking at the 2002 track chart that I have, they list the bridge as being bridge number 298.58, which is milepost number from San Francisco and 596.67 feet long, consisting of, going from south to north, 2 reinforced concrete spans and 11 deck plate girder spans, varying in length from 38 feet to 89 feet. The varying lengths goes back to my thought that this bridge was rebuilt in years past with second hand steel removed from a bridge somewhere else. By the way, this re-use of steel spans is a very common practice in the railroad world.

Railroad management does sometimes let a bridge collapse. reading About CN on wikipedia(yeah yeah) there was a bridge and the train crew refused to take a earlier train across it claiming it was unsafe.They were reprimanded. Later that same day they took another train across it and it collapsed and they were killed.

On May 14, 2003, a trestle collapsed under the weight of a freight train near McBride, B.C., killing both crew members. Both men had been disciplined earlier for refusing to take another train on the same bridge, claiming it was unsafe. Revealed that as far back as 1999, several bridge components had been reported as rotten, yet no repairs had been ordered by management.[4] Eventually, the disciplinary records of both crewmen were amended posthumously.

Click to expand...

amtrakwolverine said:

Railroad management does sometimes let a bridge collapse. reading About CN on wikipedia(yeah yeah) there was a bridge and the train crew refused to take a earlier train across it claiming it was unsafe.They were reprimanded. Later that same day they took another train across it and it collapsed and they were killed.

On May 14, 2003, a trestle collapsed under the weight of a freight train near McBride, B.C., killing both crew members. Both men had been disciplined earlier for refusing to take another train on the same bridge, claiming it was unsafe. Revealed that as far back as 1999, several bridge components had been reported as rotten, yet no repairs had been ordered by management.[4] Eventually, the disciplinary records of both crewmen were amended posthumously.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I should have thought about them. I think there were quite a few from ICRR that went into CN management, or maybe some of it the other way around. There was a bridge on an ex ICRR branch in Mississippi that collapsed a few years back, don't rememeber exactly when, but it was since the takeover of ICRR by CN. ICRR had been noted for stupid stuff in track for quite a few years. The famous 16 hours for 921 miles City of New Orleans and Panama Limited of the 1950's and early 1960's became impossible before Amtrak took over. Their takeover of the GM&O was essentially death to the GM&O. About the only piece left that is in IC ownership is the ex GM&N line from Beaumont Mississippi into Mobile. The rest has enther been sold off to short lines or abandoned, or sold to short lines and then abandoned. A hint of how bad they had gotten is that after KCS took over the Meridian to Shreveport line they have spent over $300 million dollars on this 300 mile line to get it into decent shape, and I suspect quite a bit more, posssibly as much as 2 to 3 times that much.

George Harris said:

Bklein said:

Well, at least read the federal (fhwa) link. And don't run the highway vs train crossing arguement by me again - steel is steel..

Click to expand...

How about reading what I said. I said that this bridge will not be in the CA link you gave because it is not their bridge. The do not own it. They do not maintan it. Therefore, Caltrans as a highway agency does not care about this bridge. In no way was I trying to say that steel was not steel because it was railroad steel instead of highway steel. I was saying that appearance is of much less significance to a railroad than to a highway agency. Look at the FRA requirements. This bridge does get frequently inspected, and that by people who know a lot more about what it takes to ensure a functional bridge than either one of us, unless you are a structural engineer, which I suspect is not the case.

Looking at the 2002 track chart that I have, they list the bridge as being bridge number 298.58, which is milepost number from San Francisco and 596.67 feet long, consisting of, going from south to north, 2 reinforced concrete spans and 11 deck plate girder spans, varying in length from 38 feet to 89 feet. The varying lengths goes back to my thought that this bridge was rebuilt in years past with second hand steel removed from a bridge somewhere else. By the way, this re-use of steel spans is a very common practice in the railroad world.

Click to expand...

What I am trying to get to is this: I looked at this bridge close up. I could touch it or climb up and walk along some planking under it if I had wished to. I was close enough to see that it seemed that at least 30 percent of the steel thickness was now taken up by rust everywhere I looked. There was no sign of paint on this structure. I'd be cool with it if it just had noticable rust and that's it - but this was so bad! No sign of maintanence. Until I saw that photo I forwarded I wondered if perhaps this crossing is obsolete and shut down as there is a nearby turnoff to Lompoc and this one leads to the Vandenburg AFB. So then I try and find a website that describes the maintanence status of such bridges. What I forwarded was what I found and as you say it may all be irrelevant. So then I go to Union Pacific's website and find no links for Safety inspections or email contacts. I can call them - and will tomorrow just for curiosity's sake.

I think you will agree that it would be a better world if the bridge conditions and inspections were to be made public on a website somewhere. There should be something somewhere that says what the expected lifetime of such crossings are and what work has been done.

It is very possible I am over-concerned and unfamiliar with how such steel rusts. I wasn't seeing loose bolts, open holes, or loose beams. But then I wasn't there when a train passed over either. It only happens there twice a day. This steel is not the "weathered steel" type - its too old. Weathered steel seems to undergo a chemical change with the weathering that helps maintain its structural integrity and appearance. If the steel is not this type it is supposed to be painted. Like I said, no sign of paint here.

So I want to know: is this common for bridges of this type to be unpainted, with significant rust that leaves the steel thickness to perhaps 1/4"-3/8"? What is the minimum steel thickness before concern is warranted? Again, if the rust did not take up a visibly significant portion of the member thickness I'd be willing to let this go. Wouldn't fail in my lifetime anyway - that's what the last guy said that just died...

Bklein said:

What I am trying to get to is this: I looked at this bridge close up. I could touch it or climb up and walk along some planking under it if I had wished to. I was close enough to see that it seemed that at least 30 percent of the steel thickness was now taken up by rust everywhere I looked.

Click to expand...

That's great. I'll take the word of someone that works in the industry (Mr. Harris) and the fact that the bridge certainly has been inspected by a trained professional over the opinion of a layman. It isn't an issue.

I think you will agree that it would be a better world if the bridge conditions and inspections were to be made public on a website somewhere. There should be something somewhere that says what the expected lifetime of such crossings are and what work has been done.

Click to expand...

Such a thing exists for bridges owned by the government - you found it. UP (a private company) is under no obligation to make such data available to the public.

It is very possible I am over-concerned and unfamiliar with how such steel rusts. I wasn't seeing loose bolts, open holes, or loose beams. But then I wasn't there when a train passed over either. It only happens there twice a day. This steel is not the "weathered steel" type - its too old. Weathered steel seems to undergo a chemical change with the weathering that helps maintain its structural integrity and appearance. If the steel is not this type it is supposed to be painted. Like I said, no sign of paint here.

Click to expand...

You are. Perhaps you missed this post?

PRR 60 said:

A good example of regular steel behaving like weathering steel is some of the Amtrak catenary structures. Many of those structures were installed in the 1930's (long before weathering steel) and a good many of those have not seen paint in at least 50 years. They are heavily rusted, but the corrosion is stable and the structures are fine. I often joked with my Amtrak counterparts by thanking them for pioneering the development of weathering steel by simply not painting structures. They said they were happy to help the industry.

Click to expand...

So I want to know: is this common for bridges of this type to be unpainted, with significant rust that leaves the steel thickness to perhaps 1/4"-3/8"?

Click to expand...

Yes.

What is the minimum steel thickness before concern is warranted?

Click to expand...

It depends. Obviously this steel is thicker than the minimum since it has been inspected by a professional and remains in service.

Bklein said:

What I am trying to get to is this: I looked at this bridge close up. I could touch it or climb up and walk along some planking under it if I had wished to. I was close enough to see that it seemed that at least 30 percent of the steel thickness was now taken up by rust everywhere I looked. There was no sign of paint on this structure. I'd be cool with it if it just had noticable rust and that's it - but this was so bad! No sign of maintanence. Until I saw that photo I forwarded I wondered if perhaps this crossing is obsolete and shut down as there is a nearby turnoff to Lompoc and this one leads to the Vandenburg AFB. So then I try and find a website that describes the maintanence status of such bridges. What I forwarded was what I found and as you say it may all be irrelevant. So then I go to Union Pacific's website and find no links for Safety inspections or email contacts. I can call them - and will tomorrow just for curiosity's sake.

I think you will agree that it would be a better world if the bridge conditions and inspections were to be made public on a website somewhere. There should be something somewhere that says what the expected lifetime of such crossings are and what work has been done.

It is very possible I am over-concerned and unfamiliar with how such steel rusts. I wasn't seeing loose bolts, open holes, or loose beams. But then I wasn't there when a train passed over either. It only happens there twice a day. This steel is not the "weathered steel" type - its too old. Weathered steel seems to undergo a chemical change with the weathering that helps maintain its structural integrity and appearance. If the steel is not this type it is supposed to be painted. Like I said, no sign of paint here.

So I want to know: is this common for bridges of this type to be unpainted, with significant rust that leaves the steel thickness to perhaps 1/4"-3/8"? What is the minimum steel thickness before concern is warranted? Again, if the rust did not take up a visibly significant portion of the member thickness I'd be willing to let this go. Wouldn't fail in my lifetime anyway - that's what the last guy said that just died...

Click to expand...

Without seeing the structure myself, and without knowing the stress distribution in the structure, it is not possible for me to say that what you are seeing is or is not a problem. It is impossible to say that a specific amount of rust is OK, but more than that is bad. The real world of structural assessment is more complicated than that. Every situation is different. But, one thing that my 40 years in the business has told me (and I am a structural engineer): the appearance of a structure is generally not a very good indicator of a structure’s integrity.

Specific to a structure that is rusty: a rusty structure is not necessarily a bad structure. Corrosion can be damaging, or it can be benign. Weathering steel is alloyed to produce hard, benign corrosion under the correct conditions, but even old carbon steel can exhibit the same behavior. Old structures that haven’t seen paint in ages and are covered with rust are not necessarily in trouble. Based on my experience, they almost certainly are not in trouble. Corrosion that is hard, very dark and not flaking is likely not a problem. Corrosion that is orange-brown and can be knocked-off with a hammer could be on-going and destructive. Issues develop where the corrosion is continuing and destructive, and where there has been a significant loss of base steel in locations that are also high stress areas. That later part is a key. Many sections of a structure carry little or no stress. Loss of section in those areas is not of concern. An inspection and assessment has to look at both what is happening and where it is happening.

Owners inspect structures regularly, and have methodologies to relate the results of the inspections to an assessment of integrity. What a specific railroad does is something I do not know, but I would be surprised if the periodicity of the inspections of significant structures is greater than yearly. In all likelihood, the structure you saw is regularly inspected, assessed, and is OK.

Does this mean that things can’t be missed by an organization like a railroad with literally thousands of structures, large and small? Absolutely not. Does this mean your concern about the condition of the structure is silly and you should just forget about it? No! If you are concerned about the integrity of the structure, your best move is to contact the owner. In your case, that would be the Union Pacific. Most companies have a “contact us” link on their web site. Identify the structure as best you can and tell them what you are seeing as clearly as possible. If the UP is like most companies, you will not be treated like a nut-job. Your message will be forwarded to the appropriate person and it will be considered. I always followed-up on outside communications about my structures, and every so often a tip turned out to be the real deal. If you think there is a problem, let them know.

Bklein said:

But then I wasn't there when a train passed over either. It only happens there twice a day.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are 4 passenger trains per day. I do not know the number of freights. It is enough that by now most of the line is in CWR, but not so much that all is relatively recent and laid new. Aha!. I see you got the number of trains from the Surfliners that stop at Surf station. The Coast Starlight goes through at about 2:30pm northbound and 4:20pm southbound.

It is very possible I am over-concerned and unfamiliar with how such steel rusts. I wasn't seeing loose bolts, open holes, or loose beams. This steel is not the "weathered steel" type - its too old. Weathered steel seems to undergo a chemical change with the weathering that helps maintain its structural integrity and appearance. If the steel is not this type it is supposed to be painted.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Depends upon what is going on with the structure.

So I want to know: is this common for bridges of this type to be unpainted, with significant rust that leaves the steel thickness to perhaps 1/4"-3/8"?

Click to expand...

How are you getting this steel thickness? On what member is this true and at what location? Do you know what the original thickness was? These are the sort of questions that have to be answered for this statement to have any significance.

What is the minimum steel thickness before concern is warranted? Again, if the rust did not take up a visibly significant portion of the member thickness I'd be willing to let this go.

Click to expand...

To expand upon PRR60's statement concerning location of the rust, there are places where rusting completely through the plate would have no significance on its load carrying ability.
If you checked back on some things said earlier, you would see that the Federal Railraod Administration requires annual inspections of all bridges. By way of explanation, the FRA is a regulatory body, not a management body for the railroads. Given that a good railroad bridge will last 100 years plus, that equates an inspection for every 1% of a structure's life.

By the way, a timber trestle has a life of about 50 years baring fire. A timber tie will last around 30 years in reasonably straight track. In curves the life is reduced somewhat. Rail will last over 1 billion tons of passing traffic. In moderate to light trafficed lines rails in track can be over 50 years old. Rail upwards of 100 years old can be found in some track that have light and slow traffic. Most of the things you see on a railroad last a lot longer that than most people think they do.

Ok guys, thanks for the information. From what you say it is a non-issue. I didn't get to calling UP today but hope to tomorrow just to see what they say.

I'm not sure what the train schedule is as (yes) I was referring to an onsite schedule at the Surf station. But it was dated something like 2008....

I got a chance to revisit the bridge and this time take some photos.

Is there some way to post them in this thread?

Yes.

Let me be more specific.

What is the process to include photos? I see an image button but it doesn't seem to be for this purpose (asks for URL).

"My Media" doesn't work for me either.

I use forums everyday but this one is unique as far as including pictures...

Do the photos display in their original size or are they reduced in size. I have several at around 500K each.