 |
Re: Bad Railroad Bridges? Never any problems like this, right?
Author: FUD
Date: 03-12-2021 - 09:47
Can't paint bridges because of EPA? Not quite, though there's a kernel of truth as with most truthy things.
Lead paint is verboten now. If a bridge has it, the lead paint has to be removed before anything else is applied. The containment requirements are substantial and expensive, but it only has to be done once. There are a LOT of highway bridges where it has been done. Railroad bridges, well, not so much, because it costs money and railroads are mostly not maintained from taxes, and a lot (probably more like: most steel/iron bridges) are old enough to have lead paint on them.
Sandblasting bridges to remove old paint (lead!) and rust also requires containment. Again, has been done on a lot of highway bridges. But unless you're going to repaint the bridge right away, it doesn't need to be done. So double benefit (if you don't have taxes to pay for the work) by not doing anything. Eventually, of course, some bridge inspector will demand that it be done, but if no structural issues are found probably not for a while.
Highway departments do bridge inspections all the time. Some are done because the feds (FHWA) demand them, after a few high-profile collapses. The fact that they don't do enough is usually a budget issue; also note that highway bridge deficiency ratings are not always because of structural issues per se - more are due to traffic capacity issues. FRA should talk with their friends in FHWA to see if there might be ways to make railroad bridge inspections less costly and disruptive, if that's a real issue.
A $million for a bridge inspection is possible for a very large bridge in a sensitive or difficult location. Ordinary inspections should be much less expensive, even if a contractor is used.
Even modern concrete bridges need inspection. Stuff happens, reinforcing bars rust, concrete spalls, etc. While the lead and sandblasting issues don't exist, work on a concrete bridge can still be messy. They just don't need as much regular maintenance as steel bridges do. So the highway people like them. So do railroads, when they have to build or replace something these days. WAY better than a creosoted wood trestle (assuming any have avoided burning from a fire started in a homeless camp underneath).
Lead paint is verboten now. If a bridge has it, the lead paint has to be removed before anything else is applied. The containment requirements are substantial and expensive, but it only has to be done once. There are a LOT of highway bridges where it has been done. Railroad bridges, well, not so much, because it costs money and railroads are mostly not maintained from taxes, and a lot (probably more like: most steel/iron bridges) are old enough to have lead paint on them.
Sandblasting bridges to remove old paint (lead!) and rust also requires containment. Again, has been done on a lot of highway bridges. But unless you're going to repaint the bridge right away, it doesn't need to be done. So double benefit (if you don't have taxes to pay for the work) by not doing anything. Eventually, of course, some bridge inspector will demand that it be done, but if no structural issues are found probably not for a while.
Highway departments do bridge inspections all the time. Some are done because the feds (FHWA) demand them, after a few high-profile collapses. The fact that they don't do enough is usually a budget issue; also note that highway bridge deficiency ratings are not always because of structural issues per se - more are due to traffic capacity issues. FRA should talk with their friends in FHWA to see if there might be ways to make railroad bridge inspections less costly and disruptive, if that's a real issue.
A $million for a bridge inspection is possible for a very large bridge in a sensitive or difficult location. Ordinary inspections should be much less expensive, even if a contractor is used.
Even modern concrete bridges need inspection. Stuff happens, reinforcing bars rust, concrete spalls, etc. While the lead and sandblasting issues don't exist, work on a concrete bridge can still be messy. They just don't need as much regular maintenance as steel bridges do. So the highway people like them. So do railroads, when they have to build or replace something these days. WAY better than a creosoted wood trestle (assuming any have avoided burning from a fire started in a homeless camp underneath).
