Western Railroad Discussion > Brazos River

Just saw a post on Railspot that the new piers, on the Brazos River bridge in Richmond, Texas, are sinking  and the bridge will be out of service two weeks for repairs.

I overheard Amtrak #1 ask TD2 about this last night. 
The dispatcher stated the closure would begin next week.

I wonder if there will be any litigation between UP and the contractor(s)...

Robert Pierce
Sugar Land, TX
SWRails.com

This is bad news.   So, if I am correct, from this ariel pic from google maps that is dated 2016, pretty much all of the yellow that I have drawn has been washed out?   As compared to the posts from last week on here..  That is pretty amazing...

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4060521,page=1

---

TexBob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I overheard Amtrak #1 ask TD2 about this last
> night. 
> The dispatcher stated the closure would begin next
> week.
>
> I wonder if there will be any litigation between
> UP and the contractor(s)...

Don't be too quick to blame the contractors .... UPs engineers would have had to sign off on the engineering drawings, and if there was a mistake in the engineering, and the contractors followed the plans, they cannot be held liable ...



 

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

thehighwayman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TexBob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I overheard Amtrak #1 ask TD2 about this last
> > night. 
> > The dispatcher stated the closure would begin
> next
> > week.
> >
> > I wonder if there will be any litigation
> between
> > UP and the contractor(s)...
>
> Don't be too quick to blame the contractors ....
> UPs engineers would have had to sign off on the
> engineering drawings, and if there was a mistake
> in the engineering, and the contractors followed
> the plans, they cannot be held liable ...
>

unless the contractor did any work not authorized or cut corners under the terms of the contract ... Will is correct ... this one will be UP's problem ... 

Yes, your drawing is pretty much correct.  Hard to believe the original pier that sank is the one back in the woods.

Tom Kline
Houston 

sp8192 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is bad news.   So, if I am correct, from
> this ariel pic from google maps that is dated
> 2016, pretty much all of the yellow that I have
> drawn has been washed out?   As compared to the
> posts from last week on here..  That is pretty
> amazing...
>
> http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4
> 060521,page=1

When I worked for TxDOT doing radio tower specs, one part would be to do a core sample to determine what was below the ground surface.
One time in this area they were doing a core sample for a new 175 foot self support radio tower.  They stared to drill and the civil engineer came to me and said something does not look right so I can go deeper which he recommended also.
Well it turns out because it was near a riverbed we hit some sand, gravel and kept going into we got into some harder stuff.  Turns out the foundation for the tower was at 110-feet before we hit something solid.  The foundation was almost as expensive as the steel and tower work.  Blew my budget.
Maybe the same thing here.
Hopefully the civil engineers can get this figured out.

Pat
South Austin, TX

What detour route is UP using to get between Houston and CA?
Andy

Same detour that they used before.   Its all on TO.

I will be honest that I was a bit surprised that the UP and the contractor did not use the existing pier structure for support.  I would have thought they would have placed a concrete pour in place beam under the sister-ed steel girders.
I can understand the weight of the trains, bridge and the pounding being exurted, that the steel pilings would drive further into the earth. so I am not surprised it is sinking.
​So next, lets see what the UP comes up with for the new repair stradigy. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/16 14:50 by czuleget.

New pier is not sinking, another is.

Looks like from the photos I've seen, the subject bridge is single track. Since the UP has been double-tracking alot of the Sunset Route, they should build a second single-track bridge here, or replace the the existing bridge with a new double-track bridge.

Posted from iPhone

Will this effect the Sunset Limited in Arizona next week?

Alexmarissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they should build a second single-track bridge here, or
> replace the the existing bridge with a new double-track bridge.

A serious look at additional flood relief should be considered along with it.

RailNet802, owevaaaah
 

That double tracking of the bridge was suppose to be part of the phase 3 double tracking project from Sugarland, TX to Rosenburg, TX.

I am curious as to what sort of flood relief that you suggest that UP do?   At the time that the line was constructed, and still today, it is basically above the 100 year flood plain, in that it is elevated above the flood plain on an embankment east of the river, and then as it gets closer, it is on concrete spans placed on concrete pilings up to the bank of the river where the truss bridges begin.   The situation here is much like the situation where the railroads cross the Trinity river east of Houston, or even the Sabine, further east.  Basically all of this construction has been standing for over 130 years on the same alignment and has stood the test of time.  

I suspect here that one culprit is not the amount of water coming down with the flooding, but more the number of floods and the length of time that the water has been coming over the last 7-8 months.  One high water event that lasts a couple of weeks is one thing.  Numerous high water events that last for as long as six weeks is another.  The Brazos has been high since early April and is still high.  

The other culprit is the nature of the gulf coast itself.  There is simply NO BEDROCK to anchor the piers to.  It does not matter how deep you go, you are still setting the piers on easily eroded material, which once it is water saturated over long periods of time, becomes more and more easily eroded.  There is simply no easy fix for this problem anywhere along the coastal plain.

Any sort of cost / benefit analysis would suggest that the intermittent repair costs for these events are far less than the capital costs of a "permanent" fix.  

The original pier was starting to fall forward towards the river channel as it sunk downward so a new support was the only was to go.  All pilings are driven until they stop going downward, this is called the 'point of refusal'.  This point can be when the piling bottoms out on bedrock or other solid strata or when in sandy, aggregate soils the friction and compression of the soil around the pile locks it into place to where it can go no further downward.  Continuing to hammer the pile at this point will only damage it.  There is a lot of science to driving pilings in loose soils which can provide a solid foundation for tens of decades.  Contrary to what many folks believe you don't just pound a pile into the ground until you think it's good enough, like a fence post.  There's a lot of calculations to be made.

Tom Kline
Houston  

czuleget Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will be honest that I was a bit surprised that
> the UP and the contractor did not use the existing
> pier structure for support.  I would have thought
> they would have placed a concrete pour in place
> beam under the sister-ed steel girders.
> I can understand the weight of the trains, bridge
> and the pounding being exurted, that the steel
> pilings would drive further into the earth. so I
> am not surprised it is sinking.
> ​So next, lets see what the UP comes up with
> for the new repair stradigy.