Beverly Draw- Failure Discussion

[NH2060]

The existing swing span to be replaced in Spring 2017 (with fair use quote) :

Commuter rail service from Salem to Rockport and Newburyport will be shut down for 21 days as part of a massive, $23 million project to replace the failing railroad bridge between Salem and Beverly.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... b5682.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only the swing's deck and motors/hydraulics.

Hence the "swing span" part. It's also a relatively short one at that compared to most other swing bridges.

All things considered though the T probably would have done well to replace it with a bascule span instead to lower the risk of any barge/boat strikes. The width of the "navigable channel" so to speak in between the two sets of approaches is narrow enough before factoring in the center "resting barrier" for the swing bridge. They've happened before and when they do it only makes for a messy commute. Even the Saugus River draw with its own problems AFAIK hasn't had that issue.

[The EGE]

It looks like they are also moving forward with replacing Gloucester. The ancient bascule (with a wooden eastern approach!) will be replaced with a modern steel and concrete span.

T Project page is here.

The project is currently at the 90% design phase. The 100% design submission is anticipated in July 2015, and advertising in the October of 2015. This is subject to the US Coast Guard (USCG) issuing the required bridge permit. The anticipated construction duration is 4 years.

[artman]

The existing swing span to be replaced in Spring 2017 (with fair use quote) :

Commuter rail service from Salem to Rockport and Newburyport will be shut down for 21 days as part of a massive, $23 million project to replace the failing railroad bridge between Salem and Beverly.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... b5682.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only the swing's deck and motors/hydraulics. It's still the same approaches, same pilings, same swing mechanism, same everything else. $23M doesn't buy a full-on replacement of a bridge that big. If it were even replacing the entire end-to-end superstructure that thing would cost a healthy bit more than the Merrimack River Bridge rebuild on the Haverhill Line. This price tag just buys a swing deck, machinery components to swap out, and the scheduled masonry patches to the old piers and corrosion abatement on the approaches.

Rehab contract and the component replacement contract were separate awards. This must mean #2's been awarded if they've scheduled the public meetings for the deck-swap shutdown.

According to the article, piling repairs will begin this spring, with a bid going out now for larger piling work

[artman]

The existing swing span to be replaced in Spring 2017 (with fair use quote) :

Commuter rail service from Salem to Rockport and Newburyport will be shut down for 21 days as part of a massive, $23 million project to replace the failing railroad bridge between Salem and Beverly.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... b5682.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only the swing's deck and motors/hydraulics. It's still the same approaches, same pilings, same swing mechanism, same everything else. $23M doesn't buy a full-on replacement of a bridge that big. If it were even replacing the entire end-to-end superstructure that thing would cost a healthy bit more than the Merrimack River Bridge rebuild on the Haverhill Line. This price tag just buys a swing deck, machinery components to swap out, and the scheduled masonry patches to the old piers and corrosion abatement on the approaches.

Rehab contract and the component replacement contract were separate awards. This must mean #2's been awarded if they've scheduled the public meetings for the deck-swap shutdown.

According to the article, piling repairs will begin this spring, with a bid going out now for larger piling work

This was even further down the article:

“There are multiple options to consider, and each will be fully vetted over the course of the coming months,” the spokesman said. “Reactivating the Danvers Branch might even be on the table."

[YamaOfParadise]

This was even further down the article:

“There are multiple options to consider, and each will be fully vetted over the course of the coming months,” the spokesman said. “Reactivating the Danvers Branch might even be on the table."

Uh, I'm looking at that section now, and what I'm seeing is: “There are multiple options to consider, and each will be fully vetted over the course of the coming months,” Pesaturo said. “Commuter Rail customers’ feedback will be considered before any final determinations are made.”

[octr202]

That must have been our April Fools post for this year.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

It looks like they are also moving forward with replacing Gloucester. The ancient bascule (with a wooden eastern approach!) will be replaced with a modern steel and concrete span.

T Project page is here.

The project is currently at the 90% design phase. The 100% design submission is anticipated in July 2015, and advertising in the October of 2015. This is subject to the US Coast Guard (USCG) issuing the required bridge permit. The anticipated construction duration is 4 years.

That one's supposed to have separate bascules for each track too for maximum redundancy and maintenance ease. Which seems to be S.O.P. these days for Amtrak and most commuter rail agencies when cleanroomed replacements or radical retrofits (like the bascule-to-lift conversions on the NEC Shoreline) are needed. Significantly wider channel underneath, too, which should make the boaters happy with a less-restrictive speed limit.


Now when are they going to take care of Manchester draw? That's in the same deplorable shape as the rest, but as the smallest moveable on the system it shouldn't be all that expensive to check off the list.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

The existing swing span to be replaced in Spring 2017 (with fair use quote) :

Commuter rail service from Salem to Rockport and Newburyport will be shut down for 21 days as part of a massive, $23 million project to replace the failing railroad bridge between Salem and Beverly.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... b5682.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only the swing's deck and motors/hydraulics.

Hence the "swing span" part. It's also a relatively short one at that compared to most other swing bridges.

All things considered though the T probably would have done well to replace it with a bascule span instead to lower the risk of any barge/boat strikes. The width of the "navigable channel" so to speak in between the two sets of approaches is narrow enough before factoring in the center "resting barrier" for the swing bridge. They've happened before and when they do it only makes for a messy commute. Even the Saugus River draw with its own problems AFAIK hasn't had that issue.

Lifts are what provide the widest possible channel. They're also the least maintenance-intensive, most reliable to operate, fastest-moving (because you can adjust the height of the opening to the size of the boat and not need to go 100% every time), and the longest-lasting because the purely vertical motion allows for heavier/sturdier decking and lighter counterweights. They're also popular for retrofits where old approach spans are fully rehabbable but the moving mechanism needs to be cleanroomed with something all-new. Amtrak did a couple of bascule-to-lift conversions on the NEC Shoreline that were 50/50 recycled approaches and all-new centers. It's resulted in much-improved reliability and lifted the ceiling a bit higher on max. train frequencies between openings.

While this is a welcome and long-overdue rehabilitation it's still well short of a permanent solution for Beverly's problems. The approaches are still a patch job on old problematic pilings that'll need refreshing every 20 years unlike the pricier and way more intensive Haverhill/Merrimack rehab that resets the lifespan clock at a "like-new" 50-75 years. It's still a maintenance-intensive old swing design where design itself, regardless of new components, is more liable to get stuck than a bascule or lift. And it's still as narrow a channel as before with very restricted boat speed limit that's going to impose an upper limit on Newburyport/Rockport frequencies (which could be a problem if Portsmouth service is a 25-30 year consideration). And it has just as elevated a risk of bridge strikes as before with that narrow channel and the same old swing mechanism staying in-place.

Saugus River where the boat traffic has declined to trace levels, any replacement for Saugus Draw could/should be a fixed span (and will have to be if that's the reserved routing for the Blue Line Lynn extension traveling side-by-side a la Red + Old Colony over the Neponset). But Beverly probably does have enough taller-mast boat traffic where a movable is going to be needed no matter what and going fixed just isn't feasible or economical. It may even be dense enough boat traffic where it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference if a replacement movable were any taller than the current bridge. But it definitely would benefit bigtime from doing one of those Amtrak Shoreline-like conversions to a lift center span with double-wide shipping channel. As-is, they're just buying 20 years of state-of-repair before the next rehab, and dealing with the same general design restrictions that make swings of that type really unfavorable to keep using if there's any alternative choice in the matter. There's a reason why commuter and Class I freight RR's alike spend the extra cash for these swing/bascule-to-lift conversions when the option is available. The lowered maint headaches and bridge-strike liability going forward make it well worth their while to get it over with when it's a high-traffic and/or un-bypassable line.

[NH2060]

But Beverly probably does have enough taller-mast boat traffic where a movable is going to be needed no matter what and going fixed just isn't feasible or economical. It may even be dense enough boat traffic where it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference if a replacement movable were any taller than the current bridge. But it definitely would benefit bigtime from doing one of those Amtrak Shoreline-like conversions to a lift center span with double-wide shipping channel.

Well considering how tall the neighboring Rte. 1A bridge is that would make for some incredibly steep grades on both sides. Plus the opposition would likely be strong; and not unreasonably so with residential neighborhoods on both sides of the river being affected by construction/higher level ROW.

Now what they could do as a compromise -though it would require a longer shut down period- would be to dismantle the entire existing bridge re-grade the southern approach/dike and the ROW north of the river to the School St. bridge to permit a higher level moveable span -similar to what was done @ Niantic on the NEC- that would allow more boats to pass underneath that wouldn't require an opening. Having been to the Congress St. crossing often enough the tracks form a sort of "hump" in between the river and just beyond the School St bridge. Having the northern approach to the bridge come off of the highest point of that "hump" would make a higher level draw/lift bridge doable. The crossing @ Congress St. would either need to be significantly re-worked or eliminated altogether, but would anyone there really mind if it was closed? The existing bridge is simply too low in height in addition to having a ridiculously narrow channel. It would perhaps also do the T well to have the approaches consist of a few longer "girder" or "truss" spans compared to a continuous "trestle".

Maybe if it was more pronounced that replacing the swing bridge with a lift bridge would require only a few days' shutdown compared to 3 weeks+ the T would reconsider. The lift towers, lift span, etc. could all be built without disrupting service with the only closure(s) needed to dismantle however much of the existing bridge to create a wider shipping channel. This is after all what appears to be how the WALK bridge -also a swing span- will get replaced.

[NH2060]

The contract to replace the 130-year old swing span was awarded last week:

The MBTA's Fiscal Management Control Board on Wednesday unanimously approved awarding J.F. White Contracting Company a contract for nearly $16.2 million to complete work on the bridge.

http://www.salemnews.com/news/mbta-awar ... ntent=READ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[deathtopumpkins]

The contract to replace the 130-year old swing span was awarded last week:

The MBTA's Fiscal Management Control Board on Wednesday unanimously approved awarding J.F. White Contracting Company a contract for nearly $16.2 million to complete work on the bridge.

http://www.salemnews.com/news/mbta-awar ... ntent=READ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's disappointing to hear about the closures required. While I understand the necessity, and recognize that it could be a lot worse, I can't see the state ever proposing to close an interstate highway for 21 days for a bridge replacement.

I'm also not a fan of the "express bus from North Station to Salem and Beverly". Does this mean there will be no service to intermediate points (e.g. Swampscott, Lynn)?

[Trinnau]

It's disappointing to hear about the closures required. While I understand the necessity, and recognize that it could be a lot worse, I can't see the state ever proposing to close an interstate highway for 21 days for a bridge replacement.

I'm also not a fan of the "express bus from North Station to Salem and Beverly". Does this mean there will be no service to intermediate points (e.g. Swampscott, Lynn)?

Most interstate highways have the ability to build a second bridge and re-route traffic. Several examples of this all over the state right now. The railroad is an entirely different animal from an engineering standpoint. Ideally, this bridge would be replaced by a flyover similar to the Route 1A bridge it is adjacent to, however grade is much more forgiving with vehicles than with trains. This would be constructed alongside the existing bridge with only minor service disruption on the weekend to throw the track on the new bridge. At that point the old bridge could come down. But, that would probably cost a significantly higher amount than what they are doing.

I wouldn't take too much stock in the service plans for these presentations. They are likely to be modified and be more specific when the actual service outages occur. They did some work last year in the Chelsea area and they put everyone on MBTA buses at Lynn to go to the Blue Line at Wonderland. They'll probably do something similar for the Lynn/Swampscott folks.

[nomis]

Reminder, this weekend will be the work outage on the Eastern Route from Everett Jct & Beverly for the Beverly Draw & Silver Line in Chelsea.

[StefanW]

I just noticed nobody had posted a direct link to the detailed project PDF, so here it is:
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Board_Meetings/PPP%20Beverly%20Draw%20H62CN02%20Board%20Meeting%20021016%20REV%206%20with%20EH%20notes%20R.pdf

Also there's even more detailed PDFs on https://www.bidx.com/mbta/proposal?contid=H62CN02 under Downloads on the right side. (Warning: one is 27 MB and another is 37 MB!)

Great pictures and diagrams in those PDFs. It's basically the blueprints!

[Backshophoss]

That 2nd link is a "secure bid" site,that needs a "LOG IN" to see the files,not a "public access" site.