Preliminary work has begun to allow the missing tunnel segments to be
replaced.  When positioned, they will form, like the remaining
original segments, the basis of a new reinforced concrete tunnel
overlay.
The preliminary work is to create ramps to allow the positioning of
cranes to lift and position the replacement segments,  This
preliminary work is scheduled to take 22 weeks!
Photography has begun, but only basic civil engineering earth moving
so far.
Photography has never really stopped, but might get more interesting
quite soon.
The last few pictures and text at
http://www.meadwaypark.co.uk/Happenings
may be relevant.

Guy Gorton

On Aug 19, 1:26 pm, Guy Gorton  wrote:
> Preliminary work has begun to allow the missing tunnel segments to be
> replaced.  When positioned, they will form, like the remaining
> original segments, the basis of a new reinforced concrete tunnel
> overlay.
> The preliminary work is to create ramps to allow the positioning of
> cranes to lift and position the replacement segments,  This
> preliminary work is scheduled to take 22 weeks!
> Photography has begun, but only basic civil engineering earth moving
> so far.
> Photography has never really stopped, but might get more interesting
> quite soon.
> The last few pictures and text athttp://www.meadwaypark.co.uk/Happenings
> may be relevant.
>
> Guy Gorton

Thanks for posting.

This long running saga, whilst interesting, is pitiful.

"Guy Gorton"  wrote in message
news:seama415jbg0n7qpp9n87ac4n9f3lp7p39@4ax.com
> Preliminary work has begun to allow the missing tunnel segments to be
> replaced.  When positioned, they will form, like the remaining
> original segments, the basis of a new reinforced concrete tunnel
> overlay.

That's interesting -- does it mean that the segments will now act more 
as a former for the new reinforced concrete arch, rather than as the 
structural arch itself?

In article <b8b97694-0c2b-45e9-90c3-093dad361c49@i24g2000prf.googlegroup
s.com>, 1506  scribeth thus
>On Aug 19, 1:26 pm, Guy Gorton  wrote:
>> Preliminary work has begun to allow the missing tunnel segments to be
>> replaced.  When positioned, they will form, like the remaining
>> original segments, the basis of a new reinforced concrete tunnel
>> overlay.
>> The preliminary work is to create ramps to allow the positioning of
>> cranes to lift and position the replacement segments,  This
>> preliminary work is scheduled to take 22 weeks!
>> Photography has begun, but only basic civil engineering earth moving
>> so far.
>> Photography has never really stopped, but might get more interesting
>> quite soon.
>> The last few pictures and text athttp://www.meadwaypark.co.uk/Happenings
>> may be relevant.
>>
>> Guy Gorton
>
>Thanks for posting.
>
>This long running saga, whilst interesting, is pitiful.
>
>

Are they going to make a hole in it so they can lift stuff up from Eddie
Stobarts new Rail Tesco delivery service;?....
-- 
Tony Sayer

"Recliner" <nigelp@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote in message 
news:1219180752.3274.0@proxy01.news.clara.net...
> "Guy Gorton"  wrote in message
> news:seama415jbg0n7qpp9n87ac4n9f3lp7p39@4ax.com
>> Preliminary work has begun to allow the missing tunnel segments to be
>> replaced.  When positioned, they will form, like the remaining
>> original segments, the basis of a new reinforced concrete tunnel
>> overlay.
>
> That's interesting -- does it mean that the segments will now act more as 
> a former for the new reinforced concrete arch, rather than as the 
> structural arch itself?
Yes - IIRC the term is 'permanent formwork'.  There was a set of drawings on 
the Tesco site somewhere:

http://www.tescogerrardscross.co.uk/tunnelsketch.pdf

Paul

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:24:12 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

> Are they going to make a hole in it so they can lift stuff up from Eddie
> Stobarts new Rail Tesco delivery service;?....

Probably not intentionally!

In article , Guy Gorton
 writes

>Preliminary work has begun to allow the missing tunnel segments to be
>replaced. 

Who's paying for the redesign and extra work?  Tesco?

In message 
          Mike Tomlinson <nospam@jasper.org.uk.invalid> wrote:

> In article , Guy Gorton
>  writes
> 
> >Preliminary work has begun to allow the missing tunnel segments to be
> >replaced. 
> 
> Who's paying for the redesign and extra work?  Tesco?
> 

The insurance company.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:14:23 +0100, Graeme Wall
 wrote:

>In message 
>          Mike Tomlinson <nospam@jasper.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article , Guy Gorton
>>  writes
>> 
>> >Preliminary work has begun to allow the missing tunnel segments to be
>> >replaced. 
>> 
>> Who's paying for the redesign and extra work?  Tesco?
>> 
>
>The insurance company.

Well, perhaps some of it.  But what was insured?  The work of the
original contractor Jackson which may be judged to have been
inadequate?  The designer(s) bearing in mind that the new structure is
very different from the original?
It is perhaps a chilling thought that if June 30 2005 had slipped by
uneventfully, and that could easily have been the case, the store
would be open now and full of people.  Would it ever have collapsed or
was the original design sufficiently good to have been permanently
safe once completed correctly?
Those with a historical turn of mind might draw parallels with how the
Forth Bridge structure resulted from the Tay Bridge collapse and how a
very different tunnel structure is resulting from the 2005 collapse. 

Guy Gorton

In message , at 09:17:20 on 
Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Guy Gorton  remarked:
>It is perhaps a chilling thought that if June 30 2005 had slipped by
>uneventfully, and that could easily have been the case, the store
>would be open now and full of people.  Would it ever have collapsed or
>was the original design sufficiently good to have been permanently
>safe once completed correctly?

Not wishing to go through the whole thing again, but the design should 
have been safe once completed. Indeed, if the store had been finished 
then the "raft" that would comprise its floor would presumably both 
spread the load and bridge over any subsidence.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
          Guy Gorton  wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:14:23 +0100, Graeme Wall
>  wrote:
> 
> >In message 
> >          Mike Tomlinson <nospam@jasper.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article , Guy Gorton
> >>  writes
> >> 
> >> >Preliminary work has begun to allow the missing tunnel segments to be
> >> >replaced. 
> >> 
> >> Who's paying for the redesign and extra work?  Tesco?
> >> 
> >
> >The insurance company.
> 
> Well, perhaps some of it.  But what was insured?  The work of the
> original contractor Jackson which may be judged to have been
> inadequate?  The designer(s) bearing in mind that the new structure is
> very different from the original?

I suspect that is a question that is going to buy for new Maseratis for a
variety of lawyers.


> It is perhaps a chilling thought that if June 30 2005 had slipped by
> uneventfully, and that could easily have been the case, the store
> would be open now and full of people.  Would it ever have collapsed or
> was the original design sufficiently good to have been permanently
> safe once completed correctly?

I suspect, and, unlike some people, I make no claim to be a civil engineer,
it would have been perfectly safe if constructed properly.  It's a method
that has been used frequently elsewhere.

> Those with a historical turn of mind might draw parallels with how the
> Forth Bridge structure resulted from the Tay Bridge collapse and how a
> very different tunnel structure is resulting from the 2005 collapse. 
> 

A good comparison.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:06:19 +0100, Graeme Wall
 wrote:


>> 
>> Well, perhaps some of it.  But what was insured?  The work of the
>> original contractor Jackson which may be judged to have been
>> inadequate?  The designer(s) bearing in mind that the new structure is
>> very different from the original?
>
>I suspect that is a question that is going to buy for new Maseratis for a
>variety of lawyers.
>
>
>> It is perhaps a chilling thought that if June 30 2005 had slipped by
>> uneventfully, and that could easily have been the case, the store
>> would be open now and full of people.  Would it ever have collapsed or
>> was the original design sufficiently good to have been permanently
>> safe once completed correctly?
>
>I suspect, and, unlike some people, I make no claim to be a civil engineer,
>it would have been perfectly safe if constructed properly.  It's a method
>that has been used frequently elsewhere.

Agreed.

>> Those with a historical turn of mind might draw parallels with how the
>> Forth Bridge structure resulted from the Tay Bridge collapse and how a
>> very different tunnel structure is resulting from the 2005 collapse. 
>> 
>
>A good comparison.

Thanks.


Guy Gorton