Is that a heritage bridge structure? I feel like a more modern bridge and actually being able to run the heritage service beats a heritage bridge which keeps getting destroyed…
If they’re super keen to keep it (which I think is fair enough and better than knocking it down), build a modern bridge a few meters to the side with proper flood resilience! Prevents service disruptions, and means you can actually see the bridge as you go past
I still don’t understand Australia’s obsession with preserving heritage infrastructure while also trying as hard to make it as functional for heavy use as possible? A few examples of this where Australia tried to cling onto heritage while still using it for regular use:
- Constantly rebuilding that old bridge when the design still isn’t flood-proof, while avoiding realigning the track to a more flood-proof alignment to keep using the heritage bridge.
- Shorncliffe station: Duplication of the station and final leg of the Shorncliffe line has been axed to preserve the heritage of Shorncliffe station, resulting in requiring faster turnbacks at Shorncliffe station to increase capacity.
- V-Line Bendigo line: Singling the line at where the track passes heritage road bridges in 2006, significantly axing capacity on the line as opposed to rebuilding the bridges to allow for better clearance from the rail corridor.
There of course bound to be more example of where Australian state governments half-arse their state infrastructure for the sake of preserving heritage.
Enter the long-running saga of trying to get the line from Ballandean to Wallangarra restored for heritage services. We don’t need timber bridges from old growth forests to replace what was there before like-for-like. Culverts, or even some big reinforced concrete pipes with infill will do the job at about 1/4 the price QR reckons it’ll be. They aren’t big bridges, just little dips that creeks run through. All the big bridges through the 'Devil’s Elbow’ at Wyberba didn’t burn in the bushfires a few years ago and are perfectly serviceable. But for reasons beyond my comprehension, apparently it needs to be like it was before or not at all
While I do understand wanting to preserve heritage, surely bridges that have been destroyed by natural disasters no longer have heritage value? Replace them with modern, fit-for-purpose, and much cheaper bridges.