Caught out at Keadby

[noddyboater]

Quick word of warning re. the good old Vazon sliding railway bridge above Keadby lock.

It's been closed, then it opened - but it's not really.

The temperature of the bridge has to be below 15 degrees Celsius now for it to operate, it was previously 21 before last year's repairs. 

Today's opening window was 4 -7am, if we had rain which would definitely cool things down. It rained, the bridge didn't open.

My tide has been and gone again.

But there's a chance it may open tomorrow morning, possibly. Between 4 and 7am.

[pedlar]

This bridge has been a problem for years now, both to boaters and railway operators.

From internet data it looks like the railway level falls from Althorpe Station to Vazon Bridge then rises to Crowle Station.

Why not raise the railway on embankment between Althorpe and Crowle to clear the canal at Vazon by say 4m and save all the expense of operating and maintaining this bridge and signalbox?

[Jen-in-Wellies]

6 hours ago, pedlar said:

This bridge has been a problem for years now, both to boaters and railway operators.

From internet data it looks like the railway level falls from Althorpe Station to Vazon Bridge then rises to Crowle Station.

Why not raise the railway on embankment between Althorpe and Crowle to clear the canal at Vazon by say 4m and save all the expense of operating and maintaining this bridge and signalbox?

Cheaper to move the tidsl lock to the west side of the bridge and deepen the cut underneath. 

 

Good luck @noddyboater tomorrow morning, which I am guessing is now this morning. 

[noddyboater]

2 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Cheaper to move the tidsl lock to the west side of the bridge and deepen the cut underneath. 

 

Good luck @noddyboater tomorrow morning, which I am guessing is now this morning. 

The Gods were on our side at 4am when stars aligned, wind changed direction and the temperature dropped below 15 degrees!

[Alway Swilby]

The New Civil Engineer magazine has published an article about the saga of the bridge.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

1 hour ago, Alway Swilby said:

The New Civil Engineer magazine has published an article about the saga of the bridge.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

 

Intersting article  thanks for posting the link. 

[Jon57]

[PeterScott]

13 hours ago, Alway Swilby said:

The New Civil Engineer magazine has published an article about the saga of the bridge.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

 

Quote

... the bridge has continued to suffer periodic breakdowns due to a variety of reasons both mechanical and structural, which have been exacerbated by thermal expansion. This has frustrated users of the canal, who have legal right of way, but often find the bridge stuck in its locked position, blocking the route. ...

 

 

Excellent that they think that.

 

So does Delay-Repay apply ??

 

For example a boat costing £10,000/yr in fees, maintenance and depreciation and used for 100 days - that's £100 each day of delay ... 

 

picture from 2June1991

 

 

Edited July 4 by PeterScott
format

[David Mack]

Boats have a legal right of way, but that doesn't mean the bridge has to be opened on demand. It would probably take a court case to determine just how long the bridge can legally continue to be closed before a boat has to be let through. And given the relative levels and purpose of use by boats and trains, I can't see a court being too supportive of the navigation interest. 

[Jim Riley]

Interesting perspective on the issue from New Civil Engineer 

 

https://share.google/q79I4T0UfNUYKw4xP

Edited July 4 by Jim Riley

[David Mack]

5 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

Interesting perspective on the issue from New Civil Engineer 

 

https://share.google/q79I4T0UfNUYKw4xP

As posted 22 hours ago.

 

"The original bridge was built in the 1860s and was converted into a sliding bridge in 1925."

 

So how did it open between the 1860s and 1925?

[MtB]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

As posted 22 hours ago.

 

"The original bridge was built in the 1860s and was converted into a sliding bridge in 1925."

 

So how did it open between the 1860s and 1925?

 

An interesting question. The article says "The original bridge was built in the 1860s and was converted into a sliding bridge in 1925. It is the only sliding drawbridge on the UK rail network", which rather implies it was a different sort of drawbridge originally. A conventional 'lifting' drawbridge perhaps? 

[Mac of Cygnet]

13 hours ago, MtB said:

 

An interesting question. The article says "The original bridge was built in the 1860s and was converted into a sliding bridge in 1925. It is the only sliding drawbridge on the UK rail network", which rather implies it was a different sort of drawbridge originally. A conventional 'lifting' drawbridge perhaps? 

According to Mr Google, it was a swing bridge, which seems much simpler.  I wonder why they went to the trouble of a complicated sliding mechanism?

[Mike Todd]

On 05/07/2025 at 09:08, Mac of Cygnet said:

According to Mr Google, it was a swing bridge, which seems much simpler.  I wonder why they went to the trouble of a complicated sliding mechanism?

Perhaps due to increase in train weights? Or traffic density?

[Alway Swilby]

8 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Perhaps due to increase in train weights? Or traffic density?

Maybe. But the swing bridges at Selby and Naburn used to be on the East Coast Main Line and must have been busier than Keadby. 

[Tony Brooks]

When we went that way, I got the impression the heaviest traffic was coal trains, presumably to a power station or from a pit/port. So I wonder if even a container train weighs as much as a laden bulk coal train. I suppose I am talking axle weight rather than overall weight.

[bizzard]

If you like trains check out on Utube  ''Fort Madison IOA USA Virtual Railfan live''.  Beautiful setting on the Missisipi river, marina, Huge railway and road swing truss bridge across the river. Trans Continental trains pass through some miles long with several loco's.  Massive push river barges. Middle of the night there at the mo,about 6 hours behind us.

[Tacet]

On 04/07/2025 at 16:17, David Mack said:

Boats have a legal right of way, but that doesn't mean the bridge has to be opened on demand. It would probably take a court case to determine just how long the bridge can legally continue to be closed before a boat has to be let through. And given the relative levels and purpose of use by boats and trains, I can't see a court being too supportive of the navigation interest. 

I went to see the bridge keeper a few years back.  Best job in the world, according to him.  Anyway, he said the the boats had the right of way.  He derived some enjoyment from annoying his railway bosses by not delaying the opening until when they would have liked.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

1 minute ago, Tacet said:

I went to see the bridge keeper a few years back.  Best job in the world, according to him.  Anyway, he said the the boats had the right of way.  He derived some enjoyment from annoying his railway bosses by not delaying the opening until when they would have liked.

Wouldn't be a surprise if it is a clause in the act that allowed the railway to be built that is still active. I am assuming the canal was built before the railway, so they would have been in a strong position to set conditions. 

 

You'll get a wait when you arrive, if trains are too close to stop. The chaos you are causing is going to be invisible, as the red lights are  going on further up the track, where you can't see, but red lights there will be. Interlocked to the bridge. With the road movable bridges around there the effect of a boat passing is more immediate and obvious. So much so that the locals will turn round in the road and go another way when they see the red lights and the barriers come down. 

[MtB]

 

Deleted. Wrong thread!

Edited July 7 by MtB

[Francis Herne]

There's an interesting presentation on the 2024 works for the Permanent Way Institute, which has some history of the structure, descriptions of the problems at the time and a lot of 3D models etc.

3 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

When we went that way, I got the impression the heaviest traffic was coal trains, presumably to a power station or from a pit/port. So I wonder if even a container train weighs as much as a laden bulk coal train. I suppose I am talking axle weight rather than overall weight.

Coal trains are right on the maximum axle load limit for major freight routes, 26 tons per axle or 102t per wagon.

 

Container trains have the same limit on most routes but don't push up against it in the same way - you can load exactly the maximum weight of coal whereas containers come as they are.

 

Heaviest is stone - same axle loading but shorter wagons as it's denser. Or a string of locomotives coupled together!

[Mike Todd]

8 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Wouldn't be a surprise if it is a clause in the act that allowed the railway to be built that is still active. I am assuming the canal was built before the railway, so they would have been in a strong position to set conditions. 

 

You'll get a wait when you arrive, if trains are too close to stop. The chaos you are causing is going to be invisible, as the red lights are  going on further up the track, where you can't see, but red lights there will be. Interlocked to the bridge. With the road movable bridges around there the effect of a boat passing is more immediate and obvious. So much so that the locals will turn round in the road and go another way when they see the red lights and the barriers come down. 

There are other places where a similar operational process is needed - where a canal bridges carries a road immediately across the rail tracks. If memory serves me (not always correctly!) I am thinking of places such as Godnow a it further inland from Keadby.

[magpie patrick]

On 04/07/2025 at 18:04, David Mack said:

As posted 22 hours ago.

 

"The original bridge was built in the 1860s and was converted into a sliding bridge in 1925."

 

So how did it open between the 1860s and 1925?

 

The OS Map of circa 1900 doesn't help much, indeed it raises more questions than it answers! 

 

 

On this, it doesn't look like a moving bridge at all, and the railway appears to go over the road nearby, whereas there is now a level crossing there. The line from Keadby Junction towards the lock has gone.

 

This almost suggests the railway was lowered when the sliding bridge was put in, but an operational decision to replace a fixed bridge with a sliding bridge would border on lunacy - also, IIRC all the bridges on the Stainforth and Keady Canal swung to allow masted keels along so it's unlikely the railway got away with one that didn't.

 

On 04/07/2025 at 09:32, PeterScott said:

Excellent that they think that.

 

[boats have a right of way]

 

 

There is a difference between having a right of way and having priority - it is possible, and quite common, for two rights to have to take turns, traffic lights, footpaths across roads, level crossings etc

 

On 04/07/2025 at 16:17, David Mack said:

Boats have a legal right of way, but that doesn't mean the bridge has to be opened on demand. It would probably take a court case to determine just how long the bridge can legally continue to be closed before a boat has to be let through. And given the relative levels and purpose of use by boats and trains, I can't see a court being too supportive of the navigation interest. 

 

I suspect Network Rail would prefer not to push it, courts do come up with inconvenient rulings (one such saved the Kennet and Avon in the 50s) and the last thing they'd want is a judge saying that the risk of the bridge not closing is a risk that NR have to live with! Unlikely but not beyond the grounds of possibility.... 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

17 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

On this, it doesn't look like a moving bridge at all, and the railway appears to go over the road nearby, whereas there is now a level crossing there.

I disagree. There is a rectangular feature on the North bank of the canal that could well represent the pocket for the swing bridge that proceeded the sliding bridge to go in to when the canal is cleared for boat traffic. I also think that the railway to road crossing could still be a level crossing, as it is now. Looking at the Godnow swing bridge, further west. This area is virtually unchanged from a century ago. The distance from the canal bridge to the level crossing for the railway is only a few yards. It is hard to believe that the railway was still at a consistently higher level here, several miles away. Especially as there was then a now disused north/south railway line crossing the canal on a bridge, then the railway on another bridge between Godnow and Keadby which would have had trouble crossing an east/west railway at a similarly high level. There is a curved symbol that could refer to gates for the Godnow level crossing, that is not at Keadby. Perhaps this is an omission, or perhaps this crossing was ungated at the time? 

[magpie patrick]

1 minute ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

I disagree.

 

For the record, I don't think for one minute that the railway was lowered - but I do think the map shows errors at least of omission, other swing bridges are labelled "swing bridge" (at Bramwith for example) and this one is not, not for the railway or the road, similarly other level crossings are labelled and normally the road doesn't disappear as it does here. 

 

OS have, throughout their history, included deliberate errors to catch out anyone copying and claiming to have "done their own survey" (there was for a while a lock marked on the river Sett at Hayfield in the Peak District that never existed) so this could be one of these, or given maps in this era were hand drawn they could be inconsistencies between those draughting the plans.