Historic French river bridge rebuilt too low for barges to pass easily

[Alan de Enfield]

Ooooops :

 

 

Historic French river bridge rebuilt too low for barges to pass easily (connexionfrance.com)

 

The €8million restoration project to boost water transport of goods ended with the bridge being 38 centimetres lower than previous version

 

 

A court case has been brought in north-west France after the €8million restoration of an historic bridge reduced its height by 38cm, meaning some barges now struggle to pass and local jobs are threatened.

The department council of Yonne, in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, authorised the restoration of the bridge, which dates back to the 1940s, in the commune of Pont-sur-Yonne.

The work was part of an €11m package intended to help local businesses increase exports of goods worldwide. But the new bridge clearance is 38 centimetres lower than before, and local barges are struggling to pass underneath.

The Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie says that more than 1,000 jobs are now threatened in the area as a result.

David Buquet, director general at Logiyonne, which manages the river port of Gron, told FranceInfo: “This is a waste of public money. Creating constraints like this means there are barges that will surely not be able to come here, or will considerably raise their prices. Fewer boats available means soaring transport costs.”

Pascal Malbrunot, a boatman who uses the river, now has to be careful not to damage his barge when passing under the bridge, and says he almost has to duck himself. 

He said that he and his fellow river-users had previously told the department about the risks of lowering the bridge clearance.

He joked to FranceInfo: “Be careful not to damage the bridge with your skull! I manage to go through because [my barge] does not have a bulky load. But we don’t understand how the department continued to make the bridge lower than the old one, when we did warn them.”

The boatmen and women who use the river have now launched a court case against the department, in protest at the cost of the work and their threatened livelihoods.

Height fix ‘not simple’

The department said that river management company Voies Navigables de France, specified that the bridge must conform to a minimum regulation height of 4.70m which, at 5.10m, the bridge does despite being considerably lower than the previous bridge.

Virginie Pucelle, deputy director of Voies Navigables de France in Bourgogne said that while the bridge does conform to the regulation height, the authority is still puzzled by the department’s work.

She said: "At no time did the project owner, the Yonne department, mention its desire to reduce the height of the bridge. Beyond the regulations, a bridge that is lower than an old bridge is above all an action that is inconsistent with the development prospects of the route.”

Voies Navigables de France says it can fix the height but at a cost of €1m and work needing at least three months.

So far, the department has declined this offer, with Yonne president, Patrick Gendraud, saying that “it’s not as simple as that”.

He said: “The local assembly would need to debate this, I cannot make the decision single-handedly, so it’s just not feasible.”

[Athy]

That's about 15" in English, so quite a drop in height.

Oooh, the French bureaucrats must be rubbing their hands with glee at the tortuous negotiations which are bound to follow. Beaucoup de shrugging, much use of the phrase "C'est impossible"....

[Ex Brummie]

How long before we see them blaming Brexit?

[Steilsteven]

7 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

How long before we see them blaming Brexit?

Uh?

[Athy]

41 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Uh?

It was a process whereby Great Britain left the European Union (or, if some commentators are to be believed, vice versa). Come on, I'm sure you've heard of it.

 

I was startled to see a 1940s structure describes as "historic". perhaps it replaced a much older one which was damaged in WW2.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Athy

[John Liley]

8 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

How long before we see them blaming Brexit?

I think we should be careful with the these French stereotypes. There is, at least, a group out there promoting the return of a large-scale freight-by-water project to the port of Gron, south of Sens.

 

May I direct attention to the miserable saga of getting freight in bulk moving on the Aire & Calder? This  a route capable of handling 600 tonne loads can so far only carry 350. Lock gates do not work properly; there are not enough lock-keeping staff. And the burst that occurred before Christmas still has not had repair work started. There is a 70,000 tonne contract in carrying sand to fulfill. That is 2,500 of the biggest lorryloads. And that could just be for starters. While this matter is not attended to our planet is burning away.

[Tracy D'arth]

Sea level rise due to global warming, caused by Britain's continued use of fossil fuels to cook roast beef. All our fault.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Sea level rise due to global warming, caused by Britain's continued use of fossil fuels to cook roast beef. All our fault.

 

Ahhh the truth is outed.

 

It was not a 38cm reduction in bridge height 'cock-up', but a 38cm increase in water level that causes the problem.

[Athy]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

It was not a 38cm reduction in bridge height 'cock-up', but a 38cm increase in water level that causes the problem.

So Pont-sur-Yonne will soon be Pont-dans-Yonne.

 

But seriously: does the River Yonne still carry commercial barge traffic?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

But seriously: does the River Yonne still carry commercial barge traffic?

 

 

The article suggests it does, and that 1000 jobs are at risk if they cannot get the barges under the bridge.

[John Liley]

A recent photo, herewith. The bridge in question was demolished in 1942, for what reason I do not now. Another bridge carries  the busy main road at Pont-sur-Yonne. This new one if for local use. The barge operator's association is bringing a court case to get the thing lifted. VNF, the waterway authority has also offed a million euros to get it jacked up.

 

All in all a typical example of how water transport, by its very virtue of being inconspicuous, , gets itself ignored

 

 

[Athy]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The article suggests it does, and that 1000 jobs are at risk if they cannot get the barges under the bridge.

Yes, so I read. But I remember going on part of the Yonne in the 1990s (where the Canal du Nivernais joins it for a while) and I'm sure that commercial barging was a thing of the past even then.

[Chewbacka]

28 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Sea level rise due to global warming, caused by Britain's continued use of fossil fuels to cook roast beef. All our fault.

Rising sea levels???  Less river dredging for CRT, or more depth for the same effort.  Who said no good comes from global warming!!!

[John Liley]

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yes, so I read. But I remember going on part of the Yonne in the 1990s (where the Canal du Nivernais joins it for a while) and I'm sure that commercial barging was a thing of the past even then.

There is heavy traffic on the lower Yonne. Following the Grenelle environmental forum of 2008 the French government is pushing for a target of 25 per cent of all goods to be carried by water. A lock was rebuilt at the Yonne's lower end to enable bigger craft to get to Gron, upstream of Sens, and - the key to efficient use of waterways - indiustries have established themselves there. There is a steady flow of gravel barges also, to keep Paris supplied

 

Grain is also carried from Silos as far upstream at Laroche-Migennes, where the Canal de Bourgogne joins. 

 

The rhetoric of Brexit has not been helpful in the spread of information on such schemes! Would that our own waterway organisations put the word about.

[Up-Side-Down]

1 hour ago, John Liley said:

I think we should be careful with the these French stereotypes. There is, at least, a group out there promoting the return of a large-scale freight-by-water project to the port of Gron, south of Sens.

 

May I direct attention to the miserable saga of getting freight in bulk moving on the Aire & Calder? This  a route capable of handling 600 tonne loads can so far only carry 350. Lock gates do not work properly; there are not enough lock-keeping staff. And the burst that occurred before Christmas still has not had repair work started. There is a 70,000 tonne contract in carrying sand to fulfill. That is 2,500 of the biggest lorryloads. And that could just be for starters. While this matter is not attended to our planet is burning away.

Very nicely put John. You echo my sentiments precisely. CRT are playing dangerous funding games and one is reminded how Nero fiddled while Rome burnt. In that instance there was not entire planet at threat!

[Dav and Pen]

This is the lock at Pont sur Yonne. Lots of 80m barges mostly carrying  aggregate to Paris. There is a loading place above this bridge and I believe a container depot further up stream as well as silos. The problem for the big barges and the bridge is when they are empty as most have a fixed wheelhouse and a car behind it.

[LadyG]

3 hours ago, Dav and Pen said:

This is the lock at Pont sur Yonne. Lots of 80m barges mostly carrying  aggregate to Paris. There is a loading place above this bridge and I believe a container depot further up stream as well as silos. The problem for the big barges and the bridge is when they are empty as most have a fixed wheelhouse and a car behind it.

I like the name, is it a parody?

[smiler]

To ease the latest tension between France and the UK I'm sure the RAF would be willing to help remove the obstruction. ?

[DandV]

16 hours ago, Athy said:

It was a process whereby Great Britain left the European Union (or, if some commentators are to be believed, vice versa). Come on, I'm sure you've heard of it.

 

I was startled to see a 1940s structure describes as "historic". perhaps it replaced a much older one which was damaged in WW2.

As a 1940's build I totally reject any historic classification.

Perhaps a little outdated, some structural,  cosmetic, and functional degradation, but certainly no where near relic status.

But any talk of decommissioning will be seriously resisted.

[John Liley]

5 hours ago, DandV said:

As a 1940's build I totally reject any historic classification.

Perhaps a little outdated, some structural,  cosmetic, and functional degradation, but certainly no where near relic status.

But any talk of decommissioning will be seriously resisted.

To clarify (hopefully): there was an error in the first post on this thread. There was a multi-arched bridge across the river, dating from 1700., Various bits of it collapsed or weredismantled over the years, with the final demolition in the early 1940s, leaving a portion on the western bank.  Meanwhile, a new metal bridge across the Yonne was opened farther downstream in the 1930s, part of a busy route to the south.

 

The new bridge about which the arguments surround has no physical  connection with either of these.  Before building it the district council asked VNF, the navigation authority, for the limiting dimensions, and was given those that are no doubt still in force. These would have been fine in the days of 38 metre Freycinet peniches. In recent times, however, with the revival of water freight on a much larger scale , there is a serious need for these figures to be up-dated. The discussion now will be as to whose fault it is and who, if anyone, will pay to have the bridge jacked up.

 

If this does not happen it will be a major blow to the revival of bulk transport in the area. To add to the complication, the Yonne is a difficult river (as I know to my cost) and liable to flooding. Also, the loads coming out of the new port of Gron are often bulky (eg offshore rig components0, yet not weighty enough to get beneath the new structure as it presently stands.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by John Liley
Mis-spelling (as ever)

[Athy]

1 hour ago, John Liley said:

To clarify (hopefully): there was an error in the first post on this thread. There was a multi-arched bridge across the river, dating from 1700., Various bits of it collapsed or weredismantled over the years, with the final demolition in the early 1940s, leaving a portion on the western bank.  Meanwhile, a new metal bridge across the Yonne was opened farther downstream in the 1930s, part of a busy route to the south.

 

The new bridge about which the arguments surround has no physical  connection with either of these. 

 

 

 

Thanks, John, for that lucid summary.

So, boatmen are complaining that the new bridge is 15" lower than one which wasn't there anyway, or so the quoted article would have us believe.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Athy

[John Liley]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Thanks, John, for that lucid summary.

So, boatmen are complaining that the new bridge is 15" lower than one which wasn't there anyway.

 

 I think the comparison is with the 1930s vintage main road bridge downstream.

 

The whole matter is an uneasy repeat of what happened thirty years ago at Mailly-la-Ville on the Canal du Nivernais. Rebuilding a bridge there, unnecessarily low, prevented empty peniches from getting upstream without the water level being lowered, thus bringing to an end the long-standing carriage of grain from the regional silos. For the local maintenance squad this relieved them from the duties of tending the weir to get the level down and so, regrettably, they were pleased. 

 

One of several advantages of keeping freight on canals is that it keeps the staff on its toes.