AntiGates -
There is a big difference between a parking garage and a RR bridge. One is subjected to massive puddles of water laden with road salt and the other isn’t. It isn’t rust that causes the concrete to de-laminate, it is the salt. Salt weakens concrete over time, to say nothing about what it does to metal rebar. Modern parking garages, and in fact all road bridges, are constructed using PVC coated rebar (usually they are green in color). Even the tie wire used to tie up the rebars is PVC coated. This minimizes the affect of salt on the metal so the concrete will retain its strength longer, but over time a continual saturation with road salt will still cause the concrete to de-laminate. That is also why
Yes, salt certainly will compound the problem. no question about that. However, an absence of salt does not eliminate the problem entirely either. And yes, the MUCH MILDER WINTERS IN THE SOUTH bring far fewer freeze thaw cycles per winter than in the great white north. Prolly why they don’'t have to use road salt down in dixie? (bet there is a connection in there smewheres)
Thanks for treating me like a complete moron talking out my hat, (again) i love it when folks try to imply that. And you know what? Were it not for the fact that professional engineers whose knowledge I had a great deal of respect for had not already “brainwashed” me to the contrary, I might capitulate. Sorry though, maybe another day.
Maybe if they just put louder horns on the diesels, the mayor won’t care so much about the rust? …[}:)]
I always thought that the federal government regulated railroads. How can local building code enforcement apply to something like a railroad if it is federally regulated?
It doesn’t…Covington KY is on an ego trip. (Somebody ought to fine the good mayor Callery because he’s ugly and wears the wrong shoes [he might slip and fall, safety hazzard]…$5000.00 please][swg][swg][swg])
revisiting that last part for a moment, I suspect it is a matter of degree. Wouldn’t you?
If the problem was just a few patches of rust and some faded paint, or surface cracking in the cement I doubt that the critics would be so persistent.
If the offending eyesore was of a size that CSX could “sit a plant in front of it”, they could probably get away with that. Unfortunately when you get to this scale It would takes a rainforest to screen the uglies.
The issue here, is whether CSX *has to * make the bridge look , for lack of a better word, prettier. This, verses whether CSX *wants to * make it look prettier, in order to be a good corporate neighbor. It may be the right thing to do in the eyes of the city involved. That doesn’t mean the bean-counters at CSX think it is. In our city, we have a big, ugly, smelly, packing plant that is owned by a financially strong conglomerate. They’re not going to pretty up their physical plant, either.[sigh]
The analogy that comes to mind, is that of a racecar driver/owner who was asked to paint his car. The racetrack owner thought it detracted from the enjoyment of the fans. The driver replied that “paint won’t make the racecar any faster”.
Of course, Chicago did once send out thousands of delinquent parking ticket notices to people requesting they pay by mail or face prosecution. Thing was, some of the people had never even been to Chicago, or anywhere near it. They still managed to take in a hefty sum from people who just paid rather than fight it.
Think how much money towns could raise if they just figured out how much it would cost someone to fix something, and then set the fine at 25% of the cost. Keep the file and level the same charge every couple of years. Pure brilliance. My had is off to the mayor.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates
Yes, salt certainly will compound the problem. no question about that. However, an absence of salt does not eliminate the problem entirely either. And yes, the MUCH MILDER WINTERS IN THE SOUTH bring far fewer freeze thaw cycles per winter than in the great white north. Prolly why they don’'t have to use road salt down in dixie? (bet there is a connection in there smewheres)
Thanks for treating me like a complete moron talking out my hat, (again) i love it when folks try to imply that. And you know what? Were it not for the fact that professional engineers whose knowledge I had a great deal of respect for had not already “brainwashed” me to the
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates
Yes, salt certainly will compound the problem. no question about that. However, an absence of salt does not eliminate the problem entirely either. And yes, the MUCH MILDER WINTERS IN THE SOUTH bring far fewer freeze thaw cycles per winter than in the great white north. Prolly why they don’'t have to use road salt down in dixie? (bet there is a connection in there smewheres)
Thanks for treating me like a complete moron talking out my hat, (again) i love it when folks try to imply that. And you know what? Were it not for the fact that professional engineers whose knowledge I had a great deal of respect for had not already “brainwashed” me to the
I think the mayor is trying to improve the asthetics of his town. I highly doubt there is any danger of a massive chemical spill because the bridge is rusty. I ask again - has the mayor consulted with someone to determine the safety of the bridge? Or his he trying to use scare tactics to accomplish something? Which tactic would a politician use?
There are bridges in Milwaukee from the Milwaukee Road that are literally over a hundred years old. They didn’t have I-beams back then, they made them by riveting strips of steel together. These bridges are asthetically in horrible condition, but they hold a train like they were built yesterday.
There’s a world of difference between “We think your bridge would look better if you painted it” and “we fear for lives because the bridge may fall down if you do not paint it”. If the appearance is the issue and the town is that worried they could offer to pay to have it painted. The structuall engineers are the only ones to address the later. It’s a whole nother issue when a local government wants asthetic jurisdiction over a federalaly regulated carrier. This could set up a nightmare pressident.
I suspect you are right. “safety” is always an easy twist in making a specious argument.
Perhaps the biggest difference being (other than the possibility of corrosive agents such as salt) is the large horizontal surfaces on a parking garage, where if there is not adequate drainage, the water just sits until it either evaporates or finds a gravity assisted exit
If that exit crosses paths with rebar in the slab, I can’t think of any set of circumstances where that is desirable.
As an aside, I’ve seen some vertical cement surfaces lately on the underside of 60-80 year old railroad bridges, where the concrete is spalled completely off of the first row of re bar…
No doubt caused by the road salt spread over the roadway below by the state DOT crews, being splashed up as cars drive by No wonder the railroads expect the taxpayers to fix their bridges [oX)]
They should sue the city for the cost of repairs necessitated by the salt crews negligence, and then take the judgement money won and distribute it to the stockholders as a bonus dividend… less the $5,000 needed to pay next years fine, of course. [:D]
[(-D][(-D]
Now your thinking!
I am sure that the mayor wouldn’t go for it but man wouldn’t that be a sense of irony???
Evidently this mayor will go for just about anything. Never underestimate a politician just because most of us wouldn’t go for it.
Then he got a sponsor named Andy Granitelli, who told him to paint the car red., and they lived happily ever after…right
I think there may be more to the “city vs railroad” carborundrum (we miss you Yogi Berra)
Look at the city of Rochester/DME debacle.
With Railroad’s new “long haul only” business plan, hostile attitude towards low volume or infrequent shippers, and the evolution of interstate highways and trucking, freight railroads offer less and are far less important to the economic growth of a lineside town, so cities don’t have to be so tolerant to railroad’s “kiss me where it stinks or else” attitude.
In the 1890’s, the prospect of a railroad not coming through your town was far more disasterous than the negatives of sight, sound, and culture pollution.
Since railroads offer less of importance to the cities along it’s path, they don’t have to be as accomodating, so they aren’t. No mystery there.
Your meat packing plant at least offers jobs to the local community I’m sure that Rochester is about as thrilled with the jobs DME is promissing South Dakotans, as the people of Covington are happy about all the buckeyes working up in CSX’s northern yards.
I see a strong parallel to the old southern speed traps you used to have laying in wait for the spring driveathon to Florida vacations. Where the locals figured “if all they are gonna do is barrel through on their way to elsewhere, and be rude about doing it, why not make them pay?”
But, making the assumption that the bridge won’t fail (due to advanced rust conditions) as a ruse in service to the primary desire to not incur the cost of painting, isn’t a wise strategy either.
Love to know how thorough these safety inspections CSX claims they are making are
My bet is that they are not doing a 100% inspection each time through
it’s funny because the local NS bridge over a nearby river recently “sprouted” fluorescent marker paint circling and pointing out various flaws in the bridge’s plating.
Looks like they are gonns be doing some extensive repairs to welds, rusted plates, and some foundation repairs
Bet they paint the bridge when they are done…
I wonder how many actual repairs CSX has done to the Covington bridge, resulting from findings during their claimed “inspections”? that would be VERY interesting to know.
Bet that info is something CSX does not allow itself to make public.
How much can it cost to paint a bridge? Has CSX no community responsibility? Does CSX not care about the image they present?
Look at it this way. Let’s assume that the bridge is physically sound. The mayor wants the rr to repaint the bridge so it looks nice, right? If the railroad gives in and pays for something that -let’s face it it isn’t critical - what happens when a thousand other towns demand the same thing? That could be really expensive. And it would be an expense that isn’t justified to operate the railroad. Nor would it really be a hazardous enviromental condition.
I think the railroad is being a good citizen by ensuring the bridges are safe. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary - speculation about the quality of the inspections is really just that - speculation.