Back in the '50s railroads were proud of their physical plant and would repaint at the first sign if rust. Now they seem to like the au natural rust look. Realize the bridge will not fail from a little rust but where is the pride of ownership. Yes it costs a lot of money to paint a bridge but are the accountants running the company with the experienced operating guys pushed out.
Yes.
Nowadays they get bridges made of steel that is designed to rust into a patina (think Cor-Ten). No paint needed.
Cor-Ten steel came into use for buildings in 1964. It had been used for some railroad cars previously.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering_steel
Most railroad bridges that you see today were built before 1964 and are indeed RUSTING. And I concur with ccltrains that "Yes it costs a lot of money to paint a bridge but are the accountants running the company with the experienced operating guys pushed out. "
While I concur with the whole accountants thing, one must remember that we’re living in a different time.
Years ago, the paint crew could scrape and sandblast a bridge and just let the debris fall into the water (or whatever) below. If some paint dripped, no big deal.
Nowadays, that’s all got to be captured and properly disposed of, especially if there’s a possibility of lead. Thus a simple scrape and paint job gets a lot more complicated, with the associated costs.
It makes me wonder if the accountants are figuring that the bridge damage caused by deferred maintenance won’t show up until after they’ve found another job (or got thier bonus). Or just plan on pinning the blame on the bridge team.
I believe bridges are required to be inspected yearly, and not by the bean counters, but by qualified bridge engineers. I trust the results of their inspections are properly communicated and formed into necessary action plans.
They are, to the best of my knowledge. I had control of our track one spring a few years ago and had to give out permission to the bridge inspectors as needed.
Where the bean counters may enter into the maintenance equation might be when the inspectors recommend some maintenance, such as “if we do this the bridge will be good for another X years.” Bah. “I” don’t care if it makes it to next year as long as money shows up in my wallet…
We have several bridges in the Plymouth, MI area still painted “C&O”.
Next time I’m in Milford I’ll have to check the viaduct…
One is at 5 Mile Rd and Northville Rd and the other on Hines Dr just east of Wilcox. There may be a couple of others but I’m having cranial vaporlock right now.
My thoughts go back to my childhood home in Brooke County WV which has three railroad bridges over the Ohio River (Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh and WV, and Wheeling steel). All three of these bridges are about 100 years old and have a rust patina. One highway bridge (Market Street to Steubenville) is over 100 years old and is routinely painted by the state highway department. Need to limit the bean counters authority.
Paint can cover a lot of bad situations that can cause failure.
Let’s not forget the Atlanta Omni…made with Cor-Ten and still failed due to corrosion. I believe that movement was it’s undoing, flex from solar cycling allowing just enough disturbance in the patina to allow the corrosion to continue to penetrate.
Not that I think many bridges are built with it, but bridges being dynamic structures that they are, appear to me to be an ill-suited application.
I agree with the assessment that accountants prevail over maintenance objectives. Why spend all that money keeping the neighborhhood looking nice if you can send it to the stockholders, instead?
In comparison with bridge engineering in today’s world - railroad bridges engineered and designed 100+ years ago were designed to withstand the pounding augment of steam engines by engineers that did not know the finite strength of the material they were using so whatever they built was, in comparison to today, over designed and much stronger than the same structure if it were to be built today.,
Then we have bridge inspections that are not compleete. Thinking of the bridge at Memphis. What was done?
Maybee each year’s inspection needs to be done by someone else? On my inspecdtion rounds it was very hard to get someone to follow behind me.
Milford has two (now Lake States) - Main Street and Huron Street.
I’ll have to check the M59 bridge, too…
It could in theory, but it seems unlikely because deterioration usually damages paint. So not only does a lack of paint cause deterioration; but the presence of paint can highlight damage, which helps to discover deterioration.
So paint provides two advantages over not painting:
-
Paint inhibits deterioration, thus lengthening bridge life.
-
Paint highlights deterioration so it can be found and repaired as soon as possible, thus lengthening bridge life.
It is true that if you don’t inspect, but just rely on paint to provide the cosmetic objective of covering unsightly damage;
I was born in Alaska and lived there my first 11 years, moving in 1972. The highway department used to go out and paint the open truss steel bridges each fall with what everybody called red lead paint. Most of those bridges crossed clear mountain streams full of rainbow trout. [xx(]
I’ve watched WisDOT install new railroad bridges all over SE Wisconsin and few of them are painted because the rust patina that forms acts in the same way as paint preventing oxygen and moisture from reaching the steel underneath. These are 100 year duration bridges as well…they will never need to be painted.
So not all bridges have to be painted to protect them, some are designed to have the rust patina form and that protects them as would the paint. Some freeway bridges are painted for cosmetic reasons…others are not. Depends on the city and location of the bridge.
Now I cannot speak for areas where salt air is a factor because I have no experience or observation there.