Dick Cowles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ron -- That press release was essentially correct
> based upon the information available at the time,
> 7/1/2010. Given your engineering background you
> will be interested to know that the structural
> engineering firm did not have any plans or
> drawings for the trestle at the time so they had
> no information as to design and dimensions
> pre-fire.
>
> Thanks to Vern Glover, railroad historian and
> archivist who subsequently located a copy of the
> plans done by the D&RG around 1973, the Friends
> immediately forwarded this to the structural
> engineers about a week after they had provided
> their initial impressions. These plans were then
> incorporated into the RFP issued by the Commission
> a day or two later.
>
> I think one can safely conclude that back on 7/1
> the engineers had no firm recommendation one way
> or another, but were mainly trying to document
> what was observed so that the Commission could
> decide upon next steps, which included preparing
> and issuing an RFP that, among other things, calls
> for a load analysis of BOTH trestles.
Dick,
I know what you mean about the 7/1 information. The wording did seem a little wishy-washy for an engineering report. While they did not firmly state the the bridge needed to be replaced, they said it would be prudent. Moreover, they did not suggest testing to find out the effect of the fire. Although, they might have suggested that option shortly after the 7/1 release of information.
I am glad to hear they are going to test the bridge and find out if it can be saved for further use. Hopefully all it will need is new ties and rails. That outcome of testing for the possibility of reuse was the point of this thread (Fixing the Lobato Trestle) that I started in order to draw attention to that option, hoping that it would at least be considered before committing to a new bridge as was suggested by the first engineering report: [
ngdiscussion.net]
I can understand now that the first engineering report was limited in scope, but the press release at the the time did make it sound like moving right to the new bridge was at least a possibility. And there was also a fair amount of pushback on this forum against my thoughts about testing the fire-damaged structure. I was told that testing conclusively would not be possible, and that no engineer would put his or her stamp on the bridge to certify it for continued use. I was told that the bridge experts have spoken, and that they recommend a new bridge, and therefore, we should not second-guess them.
But then I contacted a bridge-testing firm and learned that the bridge could indeed be load tested, and that if the fire damage was insignificant, the testing firm could re-certify the bridge as meeting the structural requirements for operation. Or if there were some limited fire damage, perhaps it would be cost effective to repair some of the iron structure. For their reference, I conveyed this contact information to C&TS.
I expect we will know the results of the test within a couple weeks, and I expect the results to show that the fire did no damage to the iron. I expect the heating of the iron did not exceed 600 degrees F., even at the very top.
