Eastern Railroad Discussion > Rusting Bridges

Just about every photo that is posted on T.O. show trains crossing all kinds of bridges and even though the photos are usually great to see, I cannot believe how most of these bridges are in dire need of paint. I don't understand why especially the class I railroads are allowing theses structures to rust away like that. They are "kicking the can down the road" as the politicians say and someday they will be paying dearly rather than spend the money today to maintain them. They are a very poor corporate image for sure.
Comments from anyone?

Some of the newer bridges are made from COR-TEN, which is intended to never be painted.

ClubCar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand why
> especially the class I railroads are allowing
> theses structures to rust away like that. They

Very simple explanation ... paint costs money. Shareholders want that money in their pockets ... not on some bridge in the middle of nowhere that they will never see!
Far too much business today is focused ONLY on the current quarter -- not on the longer term.

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

Most railroad bridges will last much longer than road bridges without being painted because the railroads don't use de icing salt or other solutions in the winter that cause severe damage in a short time.

Also remember lots of older bridges were painted with lead based paint, so prior to painting new all the old paint needs to be removed in an environmentally safe way, which adds to the cost.

Posted from Android

I hate to say this, but I dont see the point to paint the bridges. After all, once they do that, it just becomes a shiny target for graffiti taggers.

Posted from Android

im_trainman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate to say this, but I don't see the point to
> paint the bridges. After all, once they do that,
> it just becomes a shiny target for graffiti
> taggers.
>
> Posted from Android


I do not agree with you on this one as these bridges for the most part have not attracted any graffiti taggers so far, mainly because they are not too easily accessible. No matter, these bridges will still continue to corrode and at some point they will need to be repaired and painted.

From what I know about corrosion, it works like this. Most metals have the tendency to return to the original state, eg. iron turning to iron oxide or rust. If you expose a large area of bare metal to the elements(like a bridge) it takes longer to corrode through the metal than if you painted it. (An auto body repairman told me this) That's because paint can chip leaving smaller exposed areas, which will corrode faster, than if the whole bridge was left bare.


Kinda makes sense.

Brian H.

An issue in the Golden State of California is the older lead paint flakes getting into the water drainage and then accumulating at some point further down river. They have found accumulations of all sorts of byproducts in the rivers and bays. They found highway drainage to be significantly loaded with bad stuff.

Corrosion is not uniform, it is often worse where moisture stays and the steel doesn't dry out.
This is often the condition at "panel points" where members are connected and paint flakes, bird droppings, leaves, etc. collect.
Often a detail paint program will control these critical issues without generating a lot of lead debris.

Why don't the railroads make bridges look pretty? Easy ROI. Return On Investment, as one poster offered it's about putting the money in the shareholders pockets.

Many older railroad bridges where overbuilt to a great degree, so a lot of surface rust is not a major structural problem. There are many bridges that are 75 to 100 years old that have many years of serviceable life ahead of them. Current Federal Regs require that all bridges must be inspected on a regular basis, if corrosion becomes an issue then repairs would be undertaken. Beyond that there are many factors that affect whether a bridge gets painted.

Safety is a major issue, wheels and couplers are not painted as the paint can hide cracks that must be monitored. Believe it or not there are bridges with the same problem, painting can hide these telltale signs. Safety concerns involving bridge painting including having MOW personnel in elevated situations, supplying fall protection during the project. What about the train traffic? Do you curfew the railroad? Do you stop and proceed with the foreman's permission through the work limits? There are many potential problems for the employees, costs in delayed freight and power.

Believe it or not there is only so much money. Before we spend it we have the obligation to get the biggest return for each dollar. The lead paint issue mentioned earlier is very valid, to sandblast a bridge for painting you have to capture every bit of dust and landfill it. Permits have to be applied for prior to disturbing the lead, a land fill has to be arranged, if the bridge is over a street permits have to be obtained for blocking the street, setting up detours, the list is long. If the bridge is over a watercourse or sensitive environment add in DNR permits, Corp of Engineers, EPA, sometimes there are public hearings, oh and if the snail farter is spawning all work has to stop for their carnal pleasure. All these things take time and cost money.

When you total up all the costs then you have to value the expected return from the expenditure. What will the coat of paint do to the bridge? Will it allow the trains to go faster? Will it prevent injuries? Will a coat of paint extend the bridge life another 25 years? What value will the paint add to the bridge? You have to be able to determine a dollar value which will pass muster with the accountants and the regulators. The cost of the paint job compared to the original cost to build the bridge can sometimes create an issue where the paint job is a betterment which must be capitalized versus being expensed. Yes that is another issue affecting the bottom line.

The argument is made regarding Company image, but Company image is very hard to value, the money spent on painting bridges could buy a lot of radio or TV adds which would reach a wider audience. Or it could pay for some new freight cars which will make the shippers happy, if the paint does not increase the number of trains that can cross the bridge or does not forestall an imminent failure, or add to the safety of the employees, general public or lading then it is not money well spent.

Another factor to consider; with the industry at 286,000 lbs. GRL as the standard interchange weight and researching the affects of going to 315,000 lbs. GRL, many bridges may become candidates for replacement. Why spend money for temporary beauty that could go toward a replacement?

I look at this question in three lights, as a stockholder, an employee and as a fan. As a stockholder I'm looking for dividends so I can live better when I retire. As an employee I have to decide where to allocate scares resources to produces the safest most efficient transportation company. As a fan it really doesn't bother me that much. To be blunt, spending money to make me as a railfan happy generally is not money well spent.

All I can add is that railroads take their bridges very seriously. Each, in there engineering department, will have a bridge section and very qualified inspectors. I've known some of them. If a railroad line is not approved for higher gross weights (GWR) it is usually due to bridge capability not rail or other subgrade issues. The old Conrail had an important branch in Indiana that did not carry Hazmats that was good for 286k even with 100lb jointed rail (at 10 mph) because the few small bridges were good for it.

Re; the recent accident in NJ, unless proven different, I would doubt that the accident was caused by a bridge failure, whether the bridge was painted or not. And an exposed exterior may reveal more evidence of corrosion than a painted one, especially if graffit-ied, meaning another layer of paint.