Phase 4 - Evaluation Report, Bridge Inspection and

Report

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Bridge Inspection and Assessment - E&N Railway, Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Phase 4 - Evaluation Report Bridge from Mile 79.1 to Mile 135.10 (20 Bridges)

REPORT

i

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE NO.

Table of Contents i

1 Introduction 1

2 Evaluation Scope 1

2.1 Assessment of Bridges 2

3 Design Criteria 3

3.1 Design Code 3

3.2 Assessment Loads 3

3.3 Scour 4

3.4 Life Expectancy of the Structures and Components 5

3.5 Capacity Calculation 7

3.6 Allowable Stresses 8

4 Ratings 9

5 Cost Estimates 10

6 Mile 79.1 – Dumont Road 22

6.1 Mile 79.1 – Description 22

6.2 Mile 79.1 – Inspection 23

6.3 Mile 79.1 – Load Rating 23

6.4 Mile 79.1 – Optional Bridge Replacement 24

6.5 Mile 79.1 – Cost Summary Tables: Present to Year 2021 25

6.6 Mile 79.1 – Cost Summary Table: Years 2021 to 2031 26


7 Mile 79.9 – Green Lake 29

7.1 Mile 79.9 Description 29




VANCOUVER ISLAND RAIL CORRIDOR

ii

7.5 Mile 79.9 – Cost Summary Table: Present to Year 2021 32


7.7 Mile 79.9 Cost Summary Table: Years 2031 to 2041 33

8 Mile 86.9 – Bonell Creek 35








9 Mile 87.2 – Hamilton Creek 40








10 Mile 93.0 – Englishman River 46




10.4 Mike 93.0 – Optional Bridge Replacement 50

10.5 Mike 93.0 – Cost Summary Tables: Present to Year 2021 51



11 Mile 98.6 – French Creek 54


11.2 Mile 98.6 - Inspection 55





12 Mile 103.7 – Little Qualicum River 61

Bridge Inspection and Assessment - E&N Railway, Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Phase 4 – Evaluation Report

iii








13 Mile 110.7 – Big Qualicum River 67








14 Mile 113.2 – Nile Creek 73








15 Mile 119.2 – Cook Creek (South Fork) 80








16 Mile 119.50 – Cook Creek (North Fork) 85

16.1 Mile 119.50 - Description 85



16.4 Mile 119.50 –Optional Bridge Replacement 87


iv




17 Mile 120.20 – Rosewell Creek 91








18 Mile 122.00 – Waterloo Creek 98







18.7 Mile 122.00 – Cost Summary Tables: Years 2031 to 2041 104

19 Mile 123.00 – Coal Creek 106








20 Mile 124.10 – Mill Creek 112









v

21 Mile 125.50 – Tsable River 122







21.7 Mile 125.50 – Cost Summary Table: Year 2031 to 2041 130

22 Mile 126.15 – Buckley Bay Road 132








23 Mile 127.60 – Hindoo Creek 137








24 Mile 131.10 – Washer Creek 143








25 Mile 135.10 – Trent River 149




vi






26 Closure 155

Appendix A - Detailed List of Structures

Appendix B - Typical Rail Car Loading on Victoria Subdivision, Vancouver Island, BC

Appendix C - Equivalent Cooper's E Load Diagrams

REPORT

1

1 Introduction

The following comprises the Phase 4 Evaluation Report for the E&N Railway bridges, along the

Victoria and Wellcox Subdivisions of the E&N Railway, owned by the Island Corridor Foundation

(ICF), currently operated by Southern Railway of Vancouver Island (SVI). This report covers 20

bridges in the northern portion of the line between Milepost 79.1 and 135.1. The remaining E&N

Railway bridges are evaluated in the Phase 2 Report, which includes the Summary for Executive

Overview. A detailed list of structures is shown in Appendix A of this report.

This evaluation takes into account the Bridge Inspection findings, outlined in our Phase 1 and 3

Inspection Report.

2 Evaluation Scope

We have conducted the engineering inspection and structural evaluation of the bridges on the E&N

line to evaluate the potential for the bridges to support projected future train loads, and to estimate

costs of future maintenance and repairs to maintain function of the bridges until the year 2041. Our

investigation is limited to the structural aspects of the bridges. We have not investigated the rail

operation and work safety issues such as rails, Jordan rails, walkways, escape platforms and

handrails.

For the purposes of this report, repair activities have been split into the following major groupings:

Maintenance (in 10 year increments) through 2041: Inspection, cleaning and other routine

actions which ensure the bridge is safe for traffic, excluding any structural repairs.

Essential Repairs (Immediate) 1: Repair of deficiencies identified in the Inspection Report

required to safely operate the bridge under the current train loadings and under modified design

speeds specified as a result of the structural assessment and load ratings. Bridge load ratings

shown in this report are based on the assumption that these essential repairs are completed.

Note: 1 It may be possible, through additional testing, analysis, monitoring, and modified

operating procedures to modify or defer the repairs identified as Essential Repairs (Immediate)

included in this report, while still allowing the passage of trains. Modified operating procedures

could include elevated bridge inspection frequencies, reduced maximum permissible operating

speed, reduced train loading by marshaling with idlers between loads, etc. to allow the passage

of trains pending completion of required Essential Repairs. These items are outside the scope

of the current contract.

Projected Repairs: Expected repairs of components required to provide future stability of a

bridge and adequacy to support the train load through 2041. The projected repairs listed in this

report are based on the Phase 1 and Phase 3 Inspection Reports we conducted in 2011, and

on historical information available to our evaluators.


2

Requirements for projected repairs may need to be adjusted as a result of findings from future

inspections. Examples could include replacing or reinforcing of the corroded and damaged

components, or major rehabilitation of deteriorated components in timber structures to extend

the life of the structure. Repair or partial replacement costs of timber structures that will have

reached their life expectancy are included in the Projected Repair costs for each bridge. We

are assuming that repair or partial replacement cost for a timber structure is in the order of one

third of the complete replacement cost for each 10 year period after the structure reaches its

expected lifespan. Estimated repair costs for steel structures, to address deficiencies that have

not been observed during the 2011 inspection but can be expected in the future, are included in

the Unallocated Rehabilitation Allowance shown in the summary table and as described in

Section 5.

Strengthening: Structural improvements to bridges that address insufficient capacities for

specific assessment train loadings that were identified by the structural assessment.

Strengthening recommendations may include plating steel members, adding stringers, Dywidag

rod stiffening mechanisms or similar strengthening processes, to timber spans and more, with a

focus on improving the capacity of the structures. 2.1 Assessment of Bridges

Assessment of each bridge focuses on the strength rating of the following:

Steel Trusses: Evaluation of all primary members (i.e. chords, hangers and diagonals) for

maximum axial tension/compression.

Steel Flexural Members (i.e. TPG, DPG, HDPG bridges): Evaluation of girders, floor

beams and stringers for midspan moment and end shear, with consideration of stability of

flanges in compression.

Timber/glulam Flexural Members: CP Rail standard plans for appropriate Cooper

loading used where applicable.

Assessment of the bridges excludes:

Maximum rating.

Fatigue rating.

Substructure members.(such as abutments, piers, wingwalls).

Connections between structural members, except as discussed in this Report.

Lateral bracing members.

Determination of the “actual” bridge capacity as a preparation of Cooper loading for every

component of every bridge.


3

3 Design Criteria

3.1 Design Code

2010 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering (Manual), modified to address site specific

issues, outlined in this report.

Transport Canada’s Guideline for Bridge Safety Management (TCG).

3.2 Assessment Loads

3.2.1 Train Load

The structures are evaluated for the following three Assessment Trains (AT):

AT1: 4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip, 55 ft. long cars

AT2: 2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263 kip, 55 ft. long cars

AT3: 3 - RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles, 130 kip each

Locomotives and cars are as shown on the drawing “Typical Rail Car Loading on Victoria

Subdivision, Vancouver Island, BC”, rev01, dated 18 August 2011, shown in Appendix B.

For evaluation purposes, these trains shall be compared against normal capacities.

Train speed: The bridges are evaluated for the desired track speed, equal to 30 mph for

all the bridges except Bridges Mile 1.30, Wellcox 0.69 and 1.02 where the desired speed is

15 mph, and Mile 28.2 Bridge where the speed is 20 mph. In the case of a negative load

rating for the desired speed, a reduced speed of 20 mph or 10 mph is considered.

All the structures are evaluated for trains (including the passenger train) traveling at a

speed of 30 mph or less. In case that the passenger trains operate at the speed of 40 mph

instead of 30 mph, the stress demands will increase by approximately 4% (based on a

sample calculation conducted for a 100 ft. steel span, note this demand varies depending

on the span length). Although the passenger train is not typically a governing load, and the

impact of passenger train speed from 30 mph to 40 mph is relatively small, we needed to

complete the stress analysis and checking to be able to confirm that the structures can

safely support the passenger train traveling at the speed of 40 mph.

3.2.2 Dynamic Impact

The dynamic impact (effective, instantaneous increase in train loading due to dynamic

effects) is calculated in accordance with Section 15-1.3.5 of the AREMA Manual.


4

3.2.3 Dead Load

Dead loads (self weight) are calculated in accordance with Section 7-2.5.2 of the AREMA

Manual for timber structures and Section 15-1.3.2 for steel structures. Dead loads

specified on the available design drawings are used wherever possible.

3.2.4 Wind Load

Considering the low traffic volume on the railway, the structures are evaluated for Train

Loads, excluding wind load, in accordance with standard industry practice. On tall and

slender bridges, where stress due to wind load, or a combination of both wind load and

train load, may cause stresses to exceed the allowable limits, the passage of trains will be

limited to periods when the wind velocity is not significant. Limitations for specific

structures are shown in the “Rating Recommendation” for each structure, shown in the

detailed evaluation report.

3.2.5 Centrifugal Forces

On curved bridges, centrifugal force shall be calculated in accordance with Section 7- 2.5.4

of the AREMA Manual for timber structures and Section 15-1.3.6 for steel structures.

3.2.6 Nosing of the Locomotive

Forces due to nosing of the locomotives and cars are disregarded in the evaluation of

primary load carrying members, in accordance with standard industry practice. These

forces primarily affect the evaluation of secondary bracing members that are not included in

the scope of this report.

3.2.7 Longitudinal Forces

Longitudinal forces from train loading are disregarded in the evaluation of primary load

carrying members, in accordance with standard industry practice. These forces primarily

affect the evaluation of bearings and substructure members that are not included in the

scope of this report.

3.3 Scour

Scour is a possible concern with several crossings along the E&N Rail Line. A complete

investigation of scour risks requires hydrological and hydraulic inputs and potentially underwater

inspections; neither was in the scope of work for this project. Inspection of scour is normally

conducted in the period of low water flows (August and September); however scour holes formed

during high flows can partially or completely fill as high water abates making detection difficult.

We have identified several crossings with scour potential under bridge piers. We recommend that

specific reviews be undertaken to investigate if there is a significant risk to the stability of the


5

structures at these crossings. Additionally, railroad personnel should inspect structures after flood

events. The available record information indicates a possibility that the piers of several bridges

(mile 110.7, 113.2, 122.0, 123.0, 131.1 and 135.1) susceptible to scour are founded on timber piles.

However, the original plans for these substructures often include a note stating to “use piles only if

necessary”, we cannot determine whether or not piles are in fact in place without more detailed

investigation. Having a pier cap supported by timber piles may reduce a risk of a catastrophic pier

failure in the event of scour. However, the size and number of piles are not known and the piles

cannot be inspected to confirm their condition and assess their capacity to support the structure in

the event of a scour. Since the piles would be 100 years old we can expect some deterioration,

although under some conditions even untreated timber piles can last beyond this duration.

Therefore, having a pile supported pier does not eliminate the risk of scour on a pier. We

recommend that the crossings identified as susceptible to scour be investigated by an expert

regardless of whether or not the piers are pile supported.

We have also identified the structures where there is the greatest likelihood that work will be

required to mitigate scour damage. The repair could consist of placing rip-rap scour protection

around the piers. Since access to some bridges is difficult, placing scour protection can be costly.

We have included the estimated scour protection cost in the cost estimates for these structures.

We realize that future investigation may reveal that scour protection is required on structures other

than those we have identified in this report. The site inspections, scour assessment and estimated

protection costs we have identified are intended as estimates only, based on the deficiencies noted.

These costs are subject to weather and flood event frequency in the future.

3.4 Life Expectancy of the Structures and Components

The majority of bridges on the E&N Rail Line were constructed in the late 19th and early 20th

century. The timber structures such as trestles and timber stingers, and timber components such

as timber ties, have typically been replaced over the years, however, the timber is reaching its

normal life expectancy on many bridges. Many steel structures are reaching their expected service

life.

The timber bridge element life span depends on the load regime, environment and maintenance

effort. The load regime will differ for various elements (ties, stringers, caps, sills, posts, piles and

bracing) but is likely not a major factor for timber deterioration due to historically light and infrequent

loads on the E&N rail line.

The bridge timbers used on the line were usually pressure treated (between 8 and 10 lbs. /cu ft. of

creosote retention) after fabrication, with timbers often incised to enhance preservative penetration

into the wood. This type of preservative treatment provides a protective shell of chemically treated

wood on the outside of the timber. Nevertheless, the depth of checks in the wood may occasionally

exceed the treatment penetration depth, allowing rot-causing fungi access to untreated wood in the

interior of the timber. Other means of fungal access past the treated outer shell include rail spike


6

holes, untreated fastener holes or fire damage. Wet conditions on Vancouver Island provide a

good environment for fungal-induced decay in untreated timber. Wet ground conditions may

precipitate decay at mudsills (timber spread footings) or exposed piles in contact with soils in

fluctuating ground water levels.

Based on experience and available information, we have assumed the following life expectancies

for the pressure treated timber on the E&N bridges:

Stringers, caps, sills, posts, piles and bracing: 50 years. Timber bridges will require

periodic maintenance to achieve this life expectancy and that is reflected in the

maintenance costs we have assigned to these structures.

Treated timber ties (bearing and structural): 30 to 35 years. (Track curvature greater

than 3 degrees typically reduces the life span by 5 years.)

Timber tie life is very dependent on traffic loading. The existing treated timber bridge ties on the

E&N Railway are typically between 30 and 40 years old.

It is evident from the age of the existing treated ties on the E&N Railway that tie life has significantly

exceeded the normal tie life expectancy of 20 to 25 years for a lightly trafficked line. This is

because the damage normally expected in timber ties, such as spike kill, has not occurred due to

very light traffic.

Untreated yellow cedar ties (bearing and structural): 20 to 25 years. (Track curvature

greater than 3 degrees typically reduces life span by 5 years.)

For timber structures nearing the end of their assumed life span that are in good to fair condition,

an additional 10 to 15 years is estimated with periodic maintenance of early rot elements.

When a significant percentage of timber ties on a bridge are in poor condition, those ties should be

replaced to ensure the bridge is safe for traffic. Since the remaining ties on the bridge are likely

reaching the end of their life span as well, we recommend that all the ties be replaced at the same

time. Top surfaces of steel girders and floor beams supporting the ties are often corroded more

significantly than the other elements because of dirt accumulating and trapping moisture. We

recommend considering coating the top steel surfaces to reduce corrosion loss in the future. We

recommend an environmentally friendly low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), paint, that does

not require sand-blasting of steel surfaces.

When the ties are replaced, we recommend that the new ties conform to CP Rail standards for E60

loading. Although the cost of tie replacement was excluded from the scope of this contract, our

estimated costs for tie replacements (including supply of pressure treated D. Fir tie with hardware

and installation) are as follows:


7

tie 8”x8” = $ 750

tie 10”x10” = $ 800

tie 10”x16” = $1000

The steel and iron structures have not been repainted for several decades; the existing paint has

mostly fallen off the structures. Our inspections have discovered some corrosion of steel and iron

structures. However there are only a few structures where the corrosion has resulted in a

significant deterioration of the capacity and, even in those structures, the damage is localised to

specific elements, such as top flanges of floor beams or top of bottom girder flanges where flaked

paint and debris has accumulated.

Steel bridges will need to be inspected and tested in the future to investigate potential corrosion as

well as mechanical damage, particularly if the railway traffic intensifies in the future. If the future

bridge inspections discover possible deterioration such as cracking of critical structural

components, failure of pins, scour, significant corrosion or mechanical damage of any structure, the

capacity of that structure will need to be re-evaluated. In case the reduced bridge capacity is

determined to be inadequate, a complete bridge replacement may be required. In this report, we

have provided optional replacement costs for the steel bridges that may require replacement in the

next 30 years, but since a complete replacement of steel structures may not be required, we have

not included the replacement costs in the costs summary.

To increase the life span of the steel structure it may be cost-effective to paint those areas which

are particularly subject to corrosion including:

The top of the top flange of floor beams.

The top of the bottom flanges of deck plate girders.

The base of steel towers in contact with vegetation or dirt.

We recommend local maintenance painting using an environmentally friendly (low VOC) paint, that

does not require sand-blasting of the steel surfaces and is relatively economical. If this local

painting work can be scheduled to coincide with other bridge repairs, the cost should not be

significant.

3.5 Capacity Calculation

Bridge load capacity is determined as outlined in Section 3.2 of Transport Canada’s Guideline for

Bridge Safety Management (TCG): http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/guideline-731.htm. This

Guideline in turn reference current AREMA guide specifications.

Bridge load capacity is typically determined from existing design and available modification records

of a bridge without additional calculation provided that the bridge substantially conforms to its

recorded configuration. The Cooper design loads, obtained for the available record drawings for


8

each structure, are shown in Appendix A. This methodology was used where appropriate on a

number of bridges along the E&N Line.

Otherwise, the load capacity of a bridge is determined by measurement and calculation of the

properties of its individual components, or other methods as determined by the Engineer. This was

done for several bridges on this project.

Where a bridge inspection reveals that the condition of a bridge or its component might adversely

affect the load capacity of the bridge to carry the traffic operated, a reduced capacity is determined.

Where the comparison of the effects of the bridge design loads and the Assessment Trains (AT)

are negative (effects of the AT’s are greater that the effects of the design load), bridge load

capacity is determined from existing design and modification records of a bridge, provided that the

bridge substantially conforms to its recorded configuration. Otherwise, the load capacity of a bridge

is determined by measurement and calculation of the properties of its individual components.

Where a bridge inspection revealed that the condition of a bridge or its component might adversely

affect the load capacity of the bridge to carry the traffic operated, a reduced capacity is determined.

In cases where bridge components are damaged in a way that renders determining reduced

capacity unreliable, the load evaluation is based on the assumption that the damaged components

in question will be replaced. These repairs are listed as Essential Repairs for each individual

bridge.

Bridge load capacity is expressed in terms of normal rating capacity. Per AREMA 15-7.3.1.1a,

normal rating is the load level which can be carried by the existing structure for its expected service

life. Maximum rating is not considered in this report.

The Cooper design load used for analysis is prorated from the Cooper E 80 Load, shown in

Figure 15-1-2 of the AREMA Manual. Alternate live load, shown on Figure 15-1-3 of the AREMA

Manual is ignored.

3.6 Allowable Stresses

Allowable stresses for iron and steel components, as some cases as recommended by a steel

manufacturer, are used where appropriate. When the allowable stresses are not specified on the

record drawings by the manufacturer we default to either:

Fabricator’s suggested allowable stresses based on the material type and era of

fabrication, or

The allowable stress table along with yield strengths as suggested in cl. 15-7.3.4.3a of the

AREMA manual.

For more modern structures, where the steel yield strength (Fy) is known, we use the allowable

stresses in steel structure as shown on Table 15-1-11 of the AREMA manual.


9

Effective slenderness ratio KL/r (where K is effective length factor, L is unsupported length and r is

radius of gyration) is calculated for compression members in trusses. An effective length factor K

equal to 7/8 is typically used for the truss diagonals and verticals as prescribed in the AREMA

table. The allowable stress in tension hangers is typically based on 0.40 Fy. The allowable stress

in any other tension members is typically based on 0.55 Fy. In computing the capacity of a

member, the gross section area is used for compression members and net section area is used for

tension members. To determine the net section properties we typically exclude the area of rivet

holes in a given cross-section within the member.

For girder spans, the effective lengths of compression flanges based on cross-frame spacing are

calculated. The stability of the top flanges in compression for steel HDPG spans, where there is no

bracing of the top flange, is calculated in accordance with a recognized procedure, such as the

procedure shown in Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, by Theodore Galambos.

4 Ratings

The normal ratings provided in this report are based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs

(Immediate) will be complete.

The Component Cooper Rating (CCR) is defined as:

CCR is the heaviest Cooper train that can cross the bridge before normal capacity of the critical

component is exceeded.

All required ratings are provided as Equivalent Cooper Demand (ECD). Cooper Equivalent load is

defined as:

ECD is the Cooper train that produces the same force effect on the critical member as the

Assessment Train.

Components having no overstress are capable of supporting the Assessment Train at the specified

speed. In specific cases, overstress not exceeding 6% may be considered acceptable by the

evaluator; such cases could include members in a redundant system, such as timber stringers,

where sound condition of the stringers is confirmed by the inspection. No overstress is considered

acceptable for non-redundant primary components or for secondary components where failure of

one member may lead to a progressive collapse, such as steel floor beams.


10

Tables showing the rating results for trusses will not show results for all members. Only the results

for the governing component of each type of component are shown. For instance, a truss has

several diagonal members, each carrying different loads and having different section properties and

different strengths. Tables will only show the results for the diagonal member that had the lowest

CCR/ECD (capacity/demand) ratio, which is the most critical component of the diagonal component

type. The critical component in a bridge may not be the same for every assessment train and this

is sometimes reflected by the Component Cooper Rating for a particular member type (truss

diagonal) being different for different assessment trains.

5 Cost Estimates

The Evaluation Report includes the cost estimates for the following groupings (see section 2 for

definitions of repair types):

Maintenance (in 10 year increments) through 2041: Inspection, cleaning and other routine

actions which ensure the bridge is safe for traffic, excluding any structural repairs.

Essential Repairs (Immediate) 1: Repair of deficiencies identified in the Inspection Report

required to safely operate the bridge under the train loadings and modified design speeds

specified as a result of the structural assessment and load ratings. Bridge load ratings shown

in this report are based on the assumption that the essential repairs are completed.

Note: 1 It may be possible, through additional testing, analysis, monitoring, and/or modified

operating procedures as required to modify and/or defer the repairs identified as Essential

Repairs (Immediate) included in this report, still ensuring safe passage of trains. Modified

operating procedures could include elevated bridge inspection frequencies, reduced maximum

permissible operating speed, reduced train loading by marshaling with idlers between loads,

etc. to ensure the safe passage of trains pending completion of required Essential Repairs.

These items are outside the scope of the current contract.

Projected Repairs: Expected repairs of components required to ensure future stability of a

bridge and adequacy to support the train load through 2041. The projected repairs listed in this

report are based on the Phase 1 and Phase 3 Inspection Reports conducted in 2011 and on

historical information available to the evaluators. Requirements for projected repairs may need

to be adjusted as a result of findings from the future inspections. Examples could include

replacing or reinforcing of the corroded and damaged components, major rehabilitation of

deteriorated components in timber structures to extend the life of the structure. Repair or

partial replacement costs of timber structures that will have reached their life expectancy are

included in the Projected Repair costs for each bridge. We are assuming that repair or partial

replacement cost for a timber structure is in the order of one third of the complete replacement

cost for each 10 year period after the stricter reaches its expected lifespan. Estimated repair

costs for steel structures, to address deficiencies that have not been observed during the 2011

inspection but can be expected in the future, are included in the Unallocated Rehabilitation

Allowance shown in the summary table.


11

Strengthening: Structural improvements to bridges that address insufficient capacities for

specific assessment train loadings that were identified by the structural assessment.

Strengthening recommendations may include plating steel members, adding stringers, Dywidag

rod stiffening mechanisms or similar strengthening processes, to timber spans and more, with a

focus on improving the capacity of the structures.

In our cost estimates we have assumed that the existing bridges will be repaired ‘like-for-like’. The

bridges to be replaced will be replaced by new structures meeting all the relevant operational and

work-safety regulations. The repairs and replacement costs shown in this report are estimated

costs to safely operate the line through each of the 10 year periods, until the year of 2041; we have

not considered residual value of the structures and repair and replacement needs after 2041.

Unallocated Rehabilitation Allowance, value specified in the summary tables represents a

potential value or repairs and replacements of the bridges, addressing deficiencies that have not

been observed during the 2011 inspection, but can reasonably be expected in the future. The

Unallocated Rehabilitation Allowance is not allocated to particular structures but applies to all the

bridges on the line. Considering age and condition of the structures, future deficiencies may occur

on several bridges. The Unallocated Rehabilitation Allowance does not include the costs of repairs

and replacements of timber ties nor trestles.

The following inspection and repair costs are EXCLUDED from the cost summary:

Costs for replacement of deteriorated timber ties.

Regular visual inspections of bridges conducted by SVI forces (Employees of the Southern

Railway of Vancouver Island Limited, performing routine inspection and maintenance of the

track).

The cost estimates for the maintenance, repair and strengthening for the bridges included in

Phase 4 are summarized in the following tables. Detailed descriptions of the repair needs follow on

a bridge by bridge basis.


12

Phase 4 - Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges from Present until the Year 2021, Passenger Loading

Bridge Mile Post

Category of Work

Total Cost for Bridge Maintenance

Essential Repairs

(Immediate)

Projected Repairs

Strengthening

79.1 $3,000 $7,000 $10,000 $0 $20,000

79.9 $43,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $103,000

86.9 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000

87.2 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000

93 $6,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $16,000

98.6 $8,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $18,000

103.7 $6,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $16,000

110.7 $6,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $26,000

113.2 $5,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000

119.2 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $0 $6,000

119.5 $3,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $8,000

120.2 $3,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $63,000

122 $3,000 $40,000 $60,000 $0 $103,000

123 $5,000 $40,000 $30,000 $0 $75,000

124.1 $5,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $35,000

125.5 $40,000 $56,000 $80,000 $0 $176,000

126.15 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000

127.6 $3,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $43,000

131.1 $7,000 $10,000 $200,000 $0 $217,000

135.1 $6,000 $110,000 $227,500 $0 $343,500

Total (no allowance *) $162,000 $308,000 $820,500 $0 $1,290,500

Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowance *

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total with Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowances

$162,000 $308,000 $820,500 $0 $1,290,500

Notes: 1. All of the costs are shown in 2011 Canadian Dollars.

2. Unallocated Rehabilitation Allowance (*) is estimated cost of future repairs and replacements of steel bridge

structures to address possible future deficiencies.

3. The cost for each of the four repair types listed under Category of Work is a discreet cost which does not

include work from another repair type.


13

Phase 4 - Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges from Present until the Year 2021, 263kip Loading

Bridge Mile Post

Category of Work


Essential Repairs

(Immediate)

Projected Repairs

Strengthening

79.1 $3,000 $7,000 $10,000 $0 $20,000

79.9 $43,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $103,000

86.9 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000

87.2 $2,000 $0 $0 $45,000 $47,000

93 $6,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $16,000

98.6 $8,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $18,000

103.7 $6,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $16,000

110.7 $6,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $26,000

113.2 $5,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000

119.2 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $0 $6,000

119.5 $3,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $8,000

120.2 $3,000 $0 $60,000 $20,000 $83,000

122 $3,000 $40,000 $60,000 $15,000 $118,000

123 $5,000 $40,000 $30,000 $0 $75,000

124.1 $5,000 $0 $30,000 $240,000 $275,000

125.5 $40,000 0 $68,000 $2,850,000 $2,958,000

126.15 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000

127.6 $3,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $43,000

131.1 $7,000 $10,000 $200,000 $0 $217,000

135.1 $6,000 $110,000 $227,500 $0 $343,500

Total (no allowance *) $162,000 $252,000 $808,500 $3,170,000 $4,392,500

Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowance *

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0


Rehabilitation

Allowances

$162,000 $252,000 $808,500 $3,170,000 $4,392,500







14

Phase 4 - Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges from Present until the Year 2021, 286kip Loading

Bridge Mile Post

Category of Work


Essential Repairs

(Immediate)

Projected Repairs

Strengthening

79.1 $3,000 $7,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000

79.9 $43,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $103,000

86.9 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,000

87.2 $2,000 $0 $0 $45,000 $47,000

93 $6,000 $0 $10,000 $150,000 $166,000

98.6 $8,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $28,000

103.7 $6,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $16,000

110.7 $6,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $26,000

113.2 $5,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000

119.2 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $0 $6,000

119.5 $3,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $8,000

120.2 $3,000 $0 $60,000 $20,000 $83,000

122 $3,000 $40,000 $60,000 $15,000 $118,000

123 $5,000 $40,000 $30,000 $0 $75,000

124.1 $5,000 $0 $30,000 $360,000 $395,000

125.5 $40,000. 0 $68,000 $2,850,000 $2,958,000

126.15 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000

127.6 $3,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $43,000

131.1 $7,000 $10,000 $200,000 $0 $217,000

135.1 $6,000 $110,000 $227,500 $0 $343,500

Total (no allowance *) $162,000 $252,000 $808,500 $3,460,000 $4,682,500

Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowance *

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0


Rehabilitation

Allowances

$162,000 $252,000 $808,500 $3,460,000 $4,682,500







15

Phase 4 - Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges 2021 - 2031, Passenger Loading

Bridge Mile Post

Category of Work


Essential Repairs

(Immediate)

Projected Repairs

Strengthening

79.1 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,000

79.9 $3,000 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $1,253,000

86.9 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

87.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

93 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

98.6 $15,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,015,000

103.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

110.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

113.2 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000

119.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

119.5 $6,000 $0 $120,000 $0 $126,000

120.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

122 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

123 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

124.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

125.5 $10,000 $0 $970,000 $0 $980,000

126.15 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

127.6 $6,000 $0 $160,000 $0 $166,000

131.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

135.1 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000

Total (no allowance *) $186,000 $0 $4,500,000 $0 $4,686,000

Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowance *

$0 $0 $2,500,000 $0 $2,500,000


Rehabilitation

Allowances

$186,000 $0 $7,000,000 $0 $7,186,000







16

Phase 4 - Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges 2021 - 2031, 263kip Loading

Bridge Mile Post

Category of Work


Essential Repairs

(Immediate)

Projected Repairs

Strengthening

79.1 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,000

79.9 $3,000 0 $1,250,000 0 $1,253,000

86.9 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

87.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

93 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

98.6 $15,000 0 $2,000,000 0 $2,015,000

103.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

110.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

113.2 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000

119.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

119.5 $6,000 $0 $120,000 $0 $126,000

120.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

122 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

123 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

124.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

125.5 $10,000 0 $970,000 0 $980,000

126.15 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

127.6 $6,000 0 $160,000 0 $166,000

131.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

135.1 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000


Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowance *

$0 $0 $2,500,000 $0 $2,500,000


Rehabilitation

Allowances

$186,000 $0 $7,000,000 $0 $7,186,000







17


Bridge Mile Post

Category of Work


Essential Repairs

(Immediate)

Projected Repairs

Strengthening

79.1 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,000

79.9 $3,000 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $1,253,000

86.9 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

87.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

93 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

98.6 $15,000 0 $2,000,000 0 $2,015,000

103.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

110.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

113.2 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000

119.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

119.5 $6,000 0 $120,000 0 $126,000

120.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

122 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

123 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

124.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

125.5 $10,000 0 $970,000 $0 $980,000

126.15 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

127.6 $6,000 0 $160,000 0 $166,000

131.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

135.1 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000


Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowance *

$0 $0 $2,500,000 $0 $2,500,000


Rehabilitation

Allowances

$186,000 $0 $7,000,000 $0 $7,186,000







18

Phase 4 - Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges 2031 - 2041, Passenger Loading

Bridge Mile Post

Category of Work


Essential Repairs

(Immediate)

Projected Repairs

Strengthening

79.1 $8,000 $0 $170,000 $0 $178,000

79.9 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000

86.9 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

87.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

93 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

98.6 $15,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,015,000

103.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

110.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

113.2 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000

119.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

119.5 $6,000 $0 $120,000 $0 $126,000

120.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

122 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

123 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

124.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

125.5 $10,000 $0 $970,000 $0 $980,000

126.15 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

127.6 $6,000 $0 $160,000 $0 $166,000

131.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

135.1 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000


Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowance *

$0 $0 $2,500,000 $0 $2,500,000


Rehabilitation

Allowances

$186,000 $0 $5,920,000 $0 $6,106,000







19


Bridge Mile Post

Category of Work


Essential Repairs

(Immediate)

Projected Repairs

Strengthening

79.1 $8,000 $0 $170,000 $0 $178,000

79.9 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000

86.9 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

87.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

93 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

98.6 $15,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,015,000

103.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

110.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

113.2 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000

119.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

119.5 $6,000 $0 $120,000 $0 $126,000

120.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

122 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

123 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

124.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

125.5 $10,000 $0 $970,000 $0 $980,000

126.15 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

127.6 $6,000 $0 $160,000 $0 $166,000

131.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

135.1 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000


Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowance *

$0 $0 $2,500,000 $0 $2,500,000


Rehabilitation

Allowances

$186,000 $0 $5,920,000 $0 $6,106,000


2. Unallocated Rehabilitation Allowance (*) is estimated cost of future repairs and replacements of

steel bridge structures to address possible future deficiencies.




20


Bridge Mile Post

Category of Work


Essential Repairs

(Immediate)

Projected Repairs

Strengthening

79.1 $8,000 $0 $170,000 $0 $178,000

79.9 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000

86.9 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

87.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

93 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

98.6 $15,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,015,000

103.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

110.7 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,000

113.2 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000

119.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

119.5 $6,000 $0 $120,000 $0 $126,000

120.2 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

122 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

123 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

124.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

125.5 $10,000 $0 $970,000 $0 $980,000

126.15 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,000

127.6 $6,000 $0 $160,000 $0 $166,000

131.1 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000

135.1 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,000


Unallocated

Rehabilitation

Allowance *

$0 $0 $2,500,000 $0 $2,500,000


Rehabilitation

Allowances

$186,000 $0 $5,920,000 $0 $6,106,000







21

Summary of Costs to Operate Bridges Phase 4 until the year of 2041

Br. Milepost Train Type

Passenger 263 286

79.1 $206,000 $206,000 $216,000

79.9 $1,359,000 $1,359,000 $1,359,000

86.9 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000

87.2 $14,000 $59,000 $59,000

93 $48,000 $48,000 $198,000

98.6 $4,048,000 $4,048,000 $4,058,000

103.7 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000

110.7 $58,000 $58,000 $58,000

113.2 $39,000 $39,000 $39,000

119.2 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000

119.5 $260,000 $260,000 $260,000

120.2 $75,000 $95,000 $95,000

122 $115,000 $130,000 $130,000

123 $95,000 $95,000 $95,000

124.1 $55,000 $295,000 $415,000

125.5 $2,136,000 $4,918,000 $4,918,000

126.15 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

127.6 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000

131.1 $237,000 $237,000 $237,000

135.1 $367,500 $367,500 $367,500

Total (no allowance *) $9,582,500 $12,684,500 $12,974,500

Unallocated

Rehabilitation Allowance

*

$5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000

TOTAL FOR PHASE 4 $14,582,500 $17,684,500 $17,974,500


2. Unallocated Rehabilitation Allowance (*) is estimated cost of future repairs and replacements of

steel bridge structures to address possible future deficiencies.


22

6 Mile 79.1 – Dumont Road

6.1 Mile 79.1 – Description

The bridge at Mile 79.1 is a seven-span treated timber trestle. Two main spans are crossing over

Dumont Road. The superstructure consists of timber stringers, supported on timber bents. The

bridge is on a tangent alignment. The total bridge length is 105 ft, Span lengths vary between

13’-3” and 18’-7”.

The bridge in present configuration was built in the year 1983.

Bridge Design Load: Cooper E60

Current Bridge Load: 2-GP9 Locomotives and 263 kip cars.

Current Speed Limit: 30 mph

Desired Speed: 30 mph


23

6.2 Mile 79.1 – Inspection

The detailed bridge inspection and field measurement were conducted in 2011. The inspection

revealed the following items of immediate concern:

Approximately 30% of the bridge ties are in poor condition.

The deeper stringers at bents 1 and 5 have only 4” of bearing on pile cap.

The immediate concerns shall be repaired to ensure stability of the bridge.

For detailed inspection results refer to the Phase 3 Inspection Report, dated 2012.

6.3 Mile 79.1 – Load Rating

The load rating by comparison with the design load (E60) was conducted for the timber stringers.

Ratings (4 - GP-9 Locomotives and 286 kip Cars @ 30 mph)

Normal Rating Component

Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper

Demand Overstress Mode

15-ft Stringer E60 E57 - Bending

15-ft Stringer E60 E63 5% 1 Shear

19.5-ft Stringer E60 E58 - Bending

19.5-ft Stringer E60 E59 - Shear

20.5-ft Stringer E60 E58 - Bending

20.5-ft Stringer E60 E58 - Shear

Note 1: Additional analysis and detailed inspection required to confirm positive evaluation.

Ratings (2 – GP-9 Locomotives and 263 kip Cars @ 30 mph)


Cooper Rating Eqv. Cooper

Demand Overstres

s Mode

15-ft Stringer E60 E53 - Bending 15-ft Stringer E60 E58 - Shear

19.5-ft Stringer E60 E54 - Bending 19.5-ft Stringer E60 E55 - Shear 20.5-ft Stringer E60 E54 - Bending 20.5-ft Stringer E60 E54 - Shear


24

Ratings (3 – RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles, 130 kip each @ 30 mph)



Demand Overstres

s Mode

15-ft Stringer E60 E22 - Bending 15-ft Stringer E60 E25 - Shear

19.5-ft Stringer E60 E23 - Bending 19.5-ft Stringer E60 E22 - Shear 20.5-ft Stringer E60 E22 - Bending 20.5-ft Stringer E60 E22 - Shear

Rating Recommendations

Train Maximum Safe

Speed Required Retrofit

(see Note 1) 4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286kip cars (286) 30 mph see note 2

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263kip cars (263) 30 mph N / A (see note 1)

3 – RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles (pass.) 30 mph N / A (see note 1)

Notes:

1 The Rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed below will

be complete.

2 A small overstress was identified in the timber stringers for shear; additional analysis and detailed

inspection required to confirm positive evaluation.

6.4 Mile 79.1 – Optional Bridge Replacement

The bridge constructed in the year 1983; is now 29 years old. The life expectancy of treated

stringers, caps, sills, posts, piles and bracing is 50 years. The expected remaining life span for the

bridge is 21 years; the structure will likely need to be replaced in 2033. The need to replace the

structure shall be re-evaluated in accordance with the results of future inspections.

Based on the experience with similar structures, we estimate that the replacement cost for the

bridge could be in the order of $500,000.

The treated timber ties will likely need to be replaced in 2018.


25

6.5 Mile 79.1 – Cost Summary Tables: Present to Year 2021

Bridge 79.1 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021, Passenger Loading and 263 kip

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing

X Clean debris on the bridge every five years to

prevent accelerated corrosion of steel members,

in particular around stringer supports - two

required

$3,000

X Bridge annual visual inspections – nine required

(by SVI forces) $0

X Replace bad ties (cost excluded) $0

X Add seating angles at piers 1 and 5 $7,000

X Replace split diagonal timber bracing members $5,000

X Replace all ties (cost excluded) $0

X Restore fill behind wing walls. $5,000

Subtotal All Loadings $20,000

Bridge 79.1 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021,

286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing

X Clean debris on the bridge every five years to

prevent accelerated corrosion of steel members,

in particular around stringer supports - two

required

$3,000


(by SVI forces) $0

X Replace bad ties (cost excluded) $0

X Add seating angles at piers 1 and 5 $7,000


26

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing

X Replace split diagonal timber bracing members $5,000


X Restore fill behind wing walls. $5,000

X Additional analysis and inspection to confirm the

capacity of 15 ft trestle to support 286 cars. $10,000


6.6 Mile 79.1 – Cost Summary Table: Years 2021 to 2031

Bridge 79.1 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges – Years 2021 to 2031, Passenger Loading, 263 kip and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing

X Clean debris on the bridge every 5 years. $3,000

X Detailed bridge inspection in 2021. (investigate

timber stringers and piles – one required $5,000


(by SVI forces) $0



27


Bridge 79.1 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges – Years 2031 to 2041, Passenger Loading, 263 kip and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing


X Detailed bridge inspection in 2031. (investigate

timber stringers and piles – one required $5,000


(by SVI forces) $0

X Replace / partially replace timber stringers and

piles (1/3 of structure assumed to be replaced). $170,000



28


29

7 Mile 79.9 – Green Lake

7.1 Mile 79.9 Description

Bridge 79.9 is a 14-span open deck bridge over Green Lake. The superstructure consists of a

treated timber trestle, with 15 ft long stringer spans supported on timber bents. The bridge is on a

tangent alignment.

The bridge in present configuration was built in the year 1974. This bridge caught fire in 2005 (or

2006), causing damage to the timber. The components that suffered the worst damaged were

subsequently replaced.


Current Bridge Load: 2-GP9 Locomotives and 263 kip cars.




30


The detailed bridge inspection and field measurement was conducted in 2011. The inspection

revealed nothing of immediate concern. Detailed drawings showing accurate member sizes were

not available to the evaluator; sizes were obtained by field measurement conducted as a follow up

to the bridge inspection program in November 2011. While the measurements were intended to be

as thorough as possible, the size of each component could not be determined with certainty and

engineering judgment was exercised as required. A potential variation exists in the rating results

that can only be eliminated if accurate plans are procured.

The members that sustained previous fire damage have approximately 3/8” section loss on any

charred face. The stringers are arranged in two groups of four; the bottom surface of all the

stringers as well as the outside faces of outside stringers in this each group are damaged; there is

no significant damage to the top stringer surfaces.

Inspection revealed rot in approximately 25% of the piles, as well as 8 bad ties.

For detailed inspection results refer to the Phase 3 Inspection Report, dated 2012.




Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Stringer E56 E60 7% Bending Stringer E57 E63 11% Shear



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Stringers E56 E55 - Bending Stringers E57 E55 2% 1 Shear

Note 1: 2% overstress is considered acceptable.



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Stringers E56 E24 - Bending Stringers E57 E25 - Shear


31


Train Maximum Safe


4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286kip Cars 10 mph N / A

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263kip cars 30 mph N / A

3 – RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles 30 mph N / A


The bridge was built in the year 1974. Similar structures with treated timber piles and stringers

typically have a design life of approximately 50 years. While stringers appear to be sound at the

moment, 25% of the piles (approximately 15 piles) are rotten. Since most of the creosote on the

exposed portion of the piles and stringers had burned off, we estimate that the design life will be

reduced by 5 or 10 years. Therefore, the structure may need to be replaced in the next 10 years.

The owner may consider the following two options:

(a) Replace the entire structure before 2021. We estimate that the replacement cost of this

bridge would be in the order of $1,250,000.

(b) Repair (post) the rotten piles in the 2012 to 2021 time frame. Conduct regular inspections

to monitor the condition of the remaining piles and stringers. We estimate that the cost to

repair the rotten piles would be in the order of $60,000. We recommend that a detailed

engineering inspection be conducted every two years; we estimate that cost of each

inspection could be $8,000. Since the piles are driven deep through soft material into

hardpan, as a part of the inspection, the inspectors shall look for the signs of possible

settlement of piles, such as uneven bearing. Future repairs and shimming may be required

to compensate for pile settlement. Replace the bridge in the 2021 to 2031 time frame.

We have shown the second option (b) in our cost summary.


32

7.5 Mile 79.9 – Cost Summary Table: Present to Year 2021

Bridge 79.9 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021, Passenger Loading, 263 kip and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



(by SVI forces) $0

X Post rotten timber piles (25% of piles) $60,000

X Replace 8 bad ties (cost excluded). $0

X Detailed Engineering Inspections (5 required) $40,000



Bridge 79.9 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges - Years 2021 to 2031, Passenger Loading, 263 kip and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing

X Clean debris on the bridge every five years. 3,000

X Replace bridge (entire structure) $1,250,000


(by SVI forces) $0

Subtotal All Loadings $1,253,000


33

7.7 Mile 79.9 Cost Summary Table: Years 2031 to 2041

Bridge 79.9 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges - Years 2031 to 2041, Passenger Loading, 263kip and 286kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing

X Clean debris on the bridge every five years. $3,000


(by SVI forces) $0



34


35

8 Mile 86.9 – Bonell Creek


Mile 86.9 Bridge is a 66 ft. single span open deck plate girder bridge. The bridge is on a tangential

alignment. The bridge was originally constructed in the year 1909 and the steel span was replaced

in 1976, with a steel girder previously used on a different location. The exact year when the girders

were fabricated is not known, but from the type we assume the girders were fabricated between

1905 and 1925. The girder steel yield strength of 30 ksi was assumed for the analysis.

Bridge Design Load: Cooper E50 (bridge design load is confirmed by analysis or representative

members)

Current Bridge Load: 2-GP9 Locomotives and 263 kip cars




36


A detailed bridge inspection was conducted in 2011. The inspection revealed nothing of immediate

concern.

The detailed bridge inspection revealed the following concerns:

Eight timber ties in poor condition; remaining ties are in good condition.

The south abutment back wall and wing walls rotated about 1 ½” on top.

There is local pitting corrosion of steel near the abutments; there is no significant section

loss.

While poor ties may not represent an immediate safety concern, we recommend the ties be

replaced to maximize the safety and load resistance of the structure. We recommend that the

abutment and wing wall movement be monitored in the future.


The detailed load rating is conducted by comparing the effect of the design load with the effects of

the assessment trains.



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Girder E50 E48 - Bending Girder E50 E49 - Shear

Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Bending Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Horizontal

Shear Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Bearing

We are not showing the tables for the effects for the passenger and 263 trains because they are

lower than the effects for the 286 train, which produce stresses within the allowable limits.


Train Maximum Safe

Speed

Required Retrofit

(see note 1)

4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286kip cars (286) 30 mph N / A

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263kip cars (263) 30 mph N / A

3 – RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles (pass.) 30 mph N / A

Note 1: We recommend that the poor ties be replaced.


37


It is unlikely that this bridge will need to be replaced in the next 30 years; therefore we are not

providing the cost estimate for the replacement of this bridge.



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing

X Clean debris from the bridge and vegetation

adjacent to bridge at abutments $2,000


(by SVI forces) $0

X Replace eight ties in poor condition (cost

excluded) $0

Subtotal all Loadings $2,000


38



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing




(by SVI forces) $0


X Detailed bridge inspection in 2021 $4,000




Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing




(by SVI forces) $0




39


40

9 Mile 87.2 – Hamilton Creek


Bridge 87.2 is a single span open deck bridge over Hamilton Creek. The superstructure consists of

a 45 ft. steel DPG span with timber ties deck. The bridge is on a curved alignment.

The bridge in present configuration was erected in the year 1909. The bridge is supported by

concrete abutments on pile foundations.






41


A detailed bridge inspection conducted was in 2011. The inspection revealed the following

immediate concern:

Ten ties are in poor condition and should be replaced.

The immediate concern shall be repaired to ensure stability of the bridge.

The inspection also revealed notable corrosion on the web and bottom flanges of the girders.

Based on the inspection findings, there is a corrosion loss of 1/16”deep x 2” high at the bottom of

the web and 1/16” deep x 2” long along the top surface of angles at the bottom flange. For a

conservative analysis, the bottom flange is assumed to have 1/16” corrosion over the entire

surface; the girder capacity was reduced accordingly. The analysis results show that the girders

capacity to resist shear is substantially greater than the demand in shear, so the minor amount of

web corrosion will not affect the rating results.


A detailed load rating is provided because the load effects of the Assessment Trains are greater

than the effects of the design load. In accordance with the design criteria, we have evaluated the

girders by checking sections with maximum moment and maximum shear, as well as timber ties in

moment, shear and end bearing.

When a component’s load rating is positive for the 286kip AT, results will not be shown for the

lighter Assessment Trains.

Ratings (4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip Cars @ 30 mph)


Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Girders E38 E54 42% Bending Girders E67 E55 - Shear




42



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper





Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper





Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper




Train Maximum Safe


4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286kip cars 10 mph See Note 1 below

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263kip cars 10 mph See Note 1 below

3 – RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles 30 mph N/A

Notes:

1. In order to support the load of the 286 kip train and 263 kip train at 10 mph, strengthening must be carried

out on the bottom flange of both girders. An additional cover plate should be added between the current

outer cover plate and the splice plate. Approximate cover plate size: 3/8” thick, 15” wide and 24’ long.


Based on our experience, the approximate replacement cost for this bridge could be in the order of

$780,000; however, it is unlikely that this bridge will need to be replaced in the next 30 years.


43


Bridge 87.2 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021, Passenger Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing




by SVI forces $0

X Replace ten ties in poor condition (cost excluded) $0

Subtotal Passenger Loading $2,000


263 kip and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing




by SVI forces $0

X Replace ten ties in poor condition (cost excluded) $0

X Reinforce bottom flange $45,000

Subtotal 263kip and 286kip Loading $47,000


44



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing




by SVI forces $0

X Replace all ties cost excluded $0





Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing




by SVI forces $0




45


46

10 Mile 93.0 – Englishman River


The bridge at Mile 93.0 is a three-span open deck truss structure over the Englishman’s River. The

superstructure consists of two 106’-4” side spans and 130’-9” centre span. The bridge is on a

tangent alignment.

The bridge spans were originally erected in the year 1909 (centre span) and 1923 (side spans) and

later all spans were reinforced in 1941 to Cooper E-50 design loading. The bridge is supported on

cast-in-place concrete piers and abutments. The structural timber ties in the centre span were

replaced in 1971; ties in side spans were replaced in 1965 and earlier.






47


A detailed bridge inspection was conducted in October 2011. The inspection revealed the following

immediate concerns:

About 30% of the timber ties are in poor conditions and the others in fair condition. We

recommend all ties be replaced to ensure safe usage of the bridge.

The Inspection also revealed the following:

Some bearings appear seized. However, since no adverse consequences are visible, we

do not recommend the bearing replacement at this point, provided the bridge is

continuously monitored.

Moderate corrosion and pitting of the steel, with no structurally significant corrosion loss.

River piers could not be inspected for scour. However, we note the potential for scour on one of

the river piers, founded on gravel, while the other one is bearing on bedrock. We recommend that

an expert review be undertaken to investigate if there is a significant risk to the stability of structure

because of scour potential. The cost estimate for this bridge includes the cost of scour

investigation, but not the cost of foundation retrofit, because we assume that no retrofit will be

required. This assumption will need to be confirmed by the engineer conducting the scour

investigation.

For detailed inspection results refer to the Inspection Report dated February 2012.


The record drawings show that the bridge trusses are reinforced to support Cooper E-50 loading.

Rating by comparison between E-50 and all three Assessment Trains was conducted for bottom

chord and diagonal members with positive results. A detailed load rating is required for top chord

members and verticals.

The detailed drawings showing accurate member sizes for the truss top chords were not available

to the evaluator; size of the top cord cover plate was not shown on the available drawings. Sizes

were obtained by field measurement conducted as a follow up to the bridge inspection program in

November 2011. The size of the top cord cover plate had to be obtained by field measurement. It

was determined that size of the cover plate is 1”x21”x7/16”. While the measurements were

intended to be as thorough as possible, the size of each component could not be determined with

certainty and engineering judgment was exercised as required.


48

The load rating result will not be shown for lighter assessment trains when a component’s load

rating is shown to be adequate for a heavier assessment train, as well as for trains traveling at a

reduced speed.



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Side Span – Top Chord E44 E54 22% Bending+axial

Side Span – Vertical E68 E60 - Compression Side Span – Diagonal E48 E48 - Tension Side Span – Diagonal E49 E47 - Compression

Side Span – Bottom Chord E50 E41 - Tension

Centre Span – Top chord

U3-U4 E45 E49 10% Bending+axial

Centre Span – Top chord


Centre Span – Vertical E60 E53 - Compression Centre Span – Diagonal E51 E47 - Tension Centre Span - Diagonal E39 E47 22% Compression Centre Span – Bottom

Chord E50 E42 - Tension



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper



Side Span – Vertical Evaluation not required Compression Side Span – Diagonal Evaluation not required Tension Side Span – Diagonal Evaluation not required Compression

Side Span – Bottom Chord Evaluation not required Tension

Centre Span – Top Chord



U6-U7 E45 E46 2%1 Bending+axial

Centre Span – Vertical Evaluation not required Compression Centre Span – Diagonal Evaluation not required Tension Centre Span – Diagonal E43 E47 11% Compression Centre Span - Bottom

Chord Evaluation not required Tension

Note 1: Considered acceptable.


49



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper






U3-U4 E45 E46 2%1 Bending+axial



Centre Span – Vertical E60 E49 - Compression Centre Span – Diagonal E51 E44 - Tension Centre Span – Diagonal E39 E43 12% Compression Centre Span - Bottom

Chord E50 E39 - Tension




Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Side Span – Top Chord E49 E51 1% 1 Bending+axial

Side Span – Vertical Evaluation not required Compression Side Span – Diagonal Evaluation not required Tension Side Span – Diagonal Evaluation not required Compression

Side Span – Bottom Chord Evaluation not required E50


U3-U4 E50 E46 - Bending+axial



Centre Span – Vertical Evaluation not required Compression Centre Span – Diagonal Evaluation not required Tension Centre Span – Diagonal E43 E44 2%1 Compression

Centre Span - Bottom Chord Evaluation not required Tension



50



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Side Span – Top Chord E44 E23 - Bending+axial







Centre Span – Vertical E60 E22 - Compression Centre Span – Diagonal E51 E16 - Tension Centre Span – Diagonal E39 E18 - Compression

Centre Span - Bottom Chord E50 E13 - Tension

Rating Recommendation

Train Maximum Safe

Speed

Required Retrofit

(See Note 1)

4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip cars 30 mph Reinforce truss (see Note 2)

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263 kip cars 10 mph (see Note 3)


Notes:

1. The rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed below will

be complete.

2. Centre span truss capacity is insufficient to support 286 kip cars; reinforcing or replacement of the truss is

required.

3. Operating speed for 263 kip train can be increased to 30 mph provided the truss is reinforced as

described above.

10.4 Mike 93.0 – Optional Bridge Replacement

The cost to replace the Mile 93.0 bridge superstructure could be in the order of $4,500,000. Cost to

replace the centre span only could be in the order of $1,800,000. This cost does not include

replacement of the substructure that appears sound and may be salvageable. This assumption will

need to be confirmed by the bridge replacement design engineer.


51

There is a strong possibility that the existing structure will survive another 30 years, particularly in

case that the traffic is light. Therefore we do not recommend that the above replacement cost is

included as a likely cost to maintain traffic to 2041.

10.5 Mike 93.0 – Cost Summary Tables: Present to Year 2021

Bridge 93.0 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021, Passenger Loading and 263 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing

X Clean debris from the bridge at 5 years $6,000

X Bridge annual visual inspections (by SVI forces) $0

X Replace 30% ties in poor condition (cost

excluded). The owner should consider complete

deck replacement.

$0

X Conduct scour investigation $10,000

Subtotal Passenger and 263kip Loading $16,000

Bridge 93.0 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021, 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Replace 30% ties in poor condition (cost

excluded). The owner should consider complete

deck replacement.

$0


X X Reinforce centre span truss top chord and

diagonals $150,000

Subtotal 286kip Loading $166,000


52



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing

X Detailed bridge inspection in 2021 (investigate

for cracks and corrosion loss in steel members,

investigate timber ties and stringers).

$10,000


X Replace remaining bridge ties (cost excluded) $0





Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing


X Detailed bridge inspection in 2031. $10,000




53


54

11 Mile 98.6 – French Creek


Bridge 98.6 is a 63 ft span open deck bridge over French Creek. The superstructure consists of 56

– 15 ft timber stringer spans supported on timber trestle bents, 2 – 45 ft DPG spans, 1 – 75 ft DPG

span and 4 – 15 ft timber stringer transition spans. The bridge is on a straight alignment.

The steel DPG spans and towers were constructed in the year 1913. The timber trestle

approaches were built in 1977.

Bridge Design Load: Cooper E60 for timber spans, E70 for steel girders (design load for steel

girders confirmed by analysis of 45 ft. span)





55

11.2 Mile 98.6 - Inspection

A detailed bridge inspection was conducted in 2011. The inspection revealed the following items of

immediate concern:

102 of the bridge ties are in poor condition.


The inspection also revealed the following:

Broken cross brace member between Bents 26 and 27, near bottom on west side.

Broken cross brace member between Bents 27 and 28, 3rd storey on west side.

Timber floor board missing from refuge bay on west side of track, second from north end.



The design loading is known for timber spans, so load rating was done by comparison.

Comparison was also done for the 75’ DPG span. The load rating for the 45’ DPG spans was

achieved by detailed analysis, confirming the design loading.



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


15’ Timber Stringer E60 E57 - Bending

15’ Timber Stringer E60 E63 5% 1 Shear

45’ DPG >E70 E54 - Bending

45’ DPG >E70 E54 - Shear

75’ DPG E70 E45 - Bending

75’ DPG E70 E49 - Shear

Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Bending

Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Shear

Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Bearing

Note 1: Additional analysis and detailed inspection required to confirm positive evaluation.


56

Ratings (2 - GP-9 Locomotives and 263 kip cars @ 30 mph)


Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper



15’ Timber Stringer E60 E58 - Shear



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper



15’ Timber Stringer E60 E25 - Shear


Train Maximum Safe

Speed

Required Retrofit (see

Note 1)

4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip Cars 30 mph 3 See note 2

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263 kip cars 30 mph 3 N / A


Notes:

1 The rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed below

will be complete.

2 A small overstress was identified in the timber stringers; additional analysis and detailed

inspection required to confirm positive evaluation.

3 Should not be operated under significant wind load.


As the bridge steel girders and substructure are in good condition, it is unlikely that bridge

replacement will be required in the next 30 years. Therefore we are not including the steel bridge

replacement cost in our cost estimate.

The timber trestle approach span is already 35 years old. It is likely that replacement will be

required in the next 10-20 years. An estimated replacement cost for the 898 ft timber trestle is in

the order of $6,000,000, including substructure elements. Estimated repair / partial replacement

cost equal to 1/3 of the complete replacement cost is included in the cost summary tables for each

10 year period after 2021.


57

Mile 98.6 – Cost Summary Tables: Present to Year 2021 Bridge 98.6 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021,

Passenger Loading and 263 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing


X Bridge annual visual inspections –(by SVI forces) $0

X Replace 102 ties in poor cond. (cost excluded) $0

X Repair cross bracing and refuge bay $10,000

Subtotal Passenger and 263 kip Loading $18,000


286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing

X Clean debris from the bridge at five years $8,000



X Repair cross bracing and refuge bay $10,000

X Additional analysis and inspection to confirm the

capacity of 15 ft trestle to support 286 cars. $10,000

Subtotal 268 kip Loading $28,000


58


Bridge 98.6 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges - Years 2021 to 2031, Passenger Loading, 263 kip Loading and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing




$10,000

X Replace Remaining Ties on steel span (cost

excluded) $0


X Repair / Partially Replace Existing timber trestles

(1/3 of 56-15ft spans and transitions) $2,000,000





Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing



X Repair / Partially Replace Existing timber trestles

(1/3 of 56-15ft spans and transitions) $2,000,000




59

98.60 – Victoria Subdivision – French Creek Bridge General Arrangement (Page 1 of 2)


60

98.60 – Victoria Subdivision – French Creek Bridge General Arrangement (Page 2 of 2)


61

12 Mile 103.7 – Little Qualicum River


Bridge 103.7 consists of a seven-span deck plate girder (DPG). The superstructure comprises

spans of 1 @ 60’-3”, 4 @ 75’ and 2 @ 45’. The bridge consists of wrought iron girders supported

by cast-in-place concrete abutments at extreme ends; the two internal 45’ spans are supported by

two steel towers designed for an E-50 Cooper Equivalent Rating.

The bridge was originally erected in the year 1913. While Spans 3, 4 and 5 are of the original

structure, Spans 1, 2, 6 and 7 were replaced in 1926.

The bridge is on a straight alignment.






62


A detailed bridge inspection, including non-destructive testing, was conducted in 2011. Based on

these inspections the following deficiencies were noted:

Approximately 100 timber ties are in poor condition.

The inspection also revealed minor corrosion to all steel surfaces, but in general all steel is in good

condition. Localized areas of minor section loss were recorded. Based on the observations in the

inspection report it was deemed unnecessary to reduce the effective area of steel due to corrosion

so the capacity was not reduced as a result.

Although no scour was visible during the 2011 inspection, the inspection report also notes potential

for scour in the river piers. The 2003 inspection report, prepared by James McLeman, notes that

water erosion on #3 pedestal on west side is visible. We therefore recommend that the bridge piers

be investigated for scour. The pier drawings note that there is “Rock with little gravel over”. We

recommend that expert reviews be undertaken to investigate if there is a significant risk to the

stability of structure because of scour potential. The cost estimate for this bridge includes the cost

of scour investigation, but not the cost of foundation retrofit, because we assume that no retrofit will

be required – this assumption will need to be confirmed by the engineer conducting the scour

investigation.



A detailed load rating was conducted by comparing the effect of the design load with the effects of

the assessment trains. The rating is based on the assumptions that the immediate concerns, listed

above, are addressed.


63



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Plate Girder (60’ – 3”) E50 E50 - Bending

Plate Girder (60’ – 3”) E50 E49 - Shear

Plate Girder (75’) E50 E45 - Bending

Plate Girder (75’) E50 E49 - Shear

Plate Girder (45’) >E60 E55 - Bending

Plate Girder (45’) >E60 E54 - Shear

Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Bending

Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Horizontal

Shear

Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Bearing



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Plate Girder (60’ – 3”) E50 E46 - Bending

Plate Girder (60’ – 3”) E50 E47 - Shear

Plate Girder (75’) E50 E42 - Bending

Plate Girder (75’) E50 E45 - Shear

Plate Girder (45’) Rating not required, see results for 286 kip cars at 30 mph

Plate Girder (45’) Rating not required, see results for 286 kip cars at 30 mph



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Plate Girder (60’ – 3”) E50 E17 - Bending Plate Girder (60’ – 3”) E50 E19 - Shear

Plate Girder (75’) E50 E16 - Bending Plate Girder (75’) E50 E17 - Shear Plate Girder (45’) Rating not required, see results for 286 kip cars at 30 mph Plate Girder (45’) Rating not required, see results for 286 kip cars at 30 mph


64


Train Maximum Safe

Speed

Required Retrofit

(see note 1)

4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286kip cars 30 mph 2 N/A

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263kip cars 30 mph 2 N/A

3 – RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles 30 mph N/A

Note 1: Ties in poor condition shall be replaced.

2: Should not be operated under significant wind load.






Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing







65



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing




$10,000

X Replace remaining timber ties on the bridge (cost

excluded) $0






Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






66


67

13 Mile 110.7 – Big Qualicum River


Bridge 110.7 is a five-span open deck bridge over the Big Qualicum River. The superstructure

consists of two 45 ft DPG spans and three 75 ft DPG spans, resting on concrete abutments and

steep tower piers.

Spans #2, #3, #4 and the steel towers were constructed in the year 1913. Span #1 was

constructed in 1926, while Span #5 was constructed in 1928. The bridge was redecked in 1971.

The bridge is on a straight alignment.






68


A detailed bridge inspection was conducted in 2011. The inspection revealed the following items of

immediate concern:

42 of the bridge ties are in poor condition.

Timber boards between the bottom of the ties and the top of the stringers are rotten and

crushing (span 3 is severely deteriorated; the other spans are starting to deteriorate).


The Inspection also revealed the following:

The bearings are heavily corroded. The expansion bearings are likely frozen, however

there are no obvious adverse consequences.

Corrosion and minor section loss in the steel girders. The steel girder capacity was

reduced accordingly.

The refuge bays are in poor condition.

Pier foundations could not be inspected for scour due to high water level. Substructure drawings

indicate that all foundations are based on piles. We recommend that the bridge piers be

investigated for scour. We also recommend that an expert review be undertaken to investigate if

there is a significant risk to the stability of structure because of scour potential. The cost estimate

for this bridge includes the cost of scour investigation, but not the cost of foundation retrofit,

because we assume that no retrofit will be required. This assumption will need to be confirmed by

the engineer conducting the scour investigation.



The load rating of 75 ft and 75’-4” spans was conducted by comparison with the design load; the

girder capacity in bending was reduced to allow for flange corrosion loss. The capacities of the

45 ft steel girder in bending and shear were obtained by calculating the actual girder section

capacity.

The rating is based on the assumption that the immediate concerns, listed above, are addressed.


69



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Span 1 and 5 – 45’ DPG >E60 1 E55 - Bending Span 1 and 5 – 45’ DPG >E60 E54 - Shear

Span 1 and 5 – 75’-4” DPG E48 1 E45 - Bending Span 1 and 5 – 75’-4” DPG E50 E49 - Shear

Span 3 – 75’ DPG E48 1 E45 - Bending Span 3 – 75’ DPG E50 E49 - Shear

Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Bending Structural Ties E79 E72 - Shear Structural Ties >E80 E72 - Bearing

Note 1: Corrosion loss is taken into account.

Since the load rating results for the 286 kip load at traveling at 30 mph are positive, we are not

showing the results for the lighter trains.


Train Maximum Safe

Speed


Note 1)

4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286kip Cars 30 mph N / A



Note 1: The rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed above

are complete.


It is unlikely that this bridge will need to be replaced in the next 30 years, therefore, we are not



70



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Replace 42 ties in poor condition, refuge bays

and crushing timber boards between bottom of

ties and top of stringers (cost excluded). The

owner should consider complete deck

replacement.

$0


X Protect bearings from further corrosion $10,000



71



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing




$10,000

X Replace remaining timber ties and boards on the

bridge (cost excluded) $0






Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






72


73

14 Mile 113.2 – Nile Creek


Bridge 113.2 consists of three steel deck plate girder (DPG) spans. The superstructure span

configuration is spans of 1 @ 50’, 1 @ 54’-4” and 1 @ 60’. The bridges consist of wrought iron

girders supported by cast-in-place concrete abutments at extreme ends; the internal spans are

supported by two cast-in-place concrete piers.

The bridge was erected in the year 1914. While Span 2 is of the original structure, Spans 1 and 3

were replaced in 1925. The treated timber deck was replaced in 1971. The bridge is on a tangent

alignment.






74


A detailed bridge inspection, including non-destructive testing, was conducted 2011. The

inspection revealed the following items of immediate concern:

33 ties are in poor condition.

The ties in poor condition need to be replaced to ensure traffic safety.

Based on these inspections the following deficiencies were also noted:

The base of Pier 1 appears to be susceptible to scour but is presently in good condition.

Refuge bays are in poor condition.

Our Inspection also revealed minor corrosion to all steel surfaces, but in general all steel is in good

condition. Localized areas of minor section loss were recorded. Based on the photograph in the

inspection report it was deemed unnecessary to reduce the effective area of steel due to corrosion

so the capacity was not reduced as a result.

We recommend that the bridge piers be investigated for scour. Substructure drawings indicate that

all piers are on piles. We recommend that an expert review be undertaken to investigate if there is

a significant risk to the stability of structure because of scour potential. The cost estimate for this

bridge include the cost of scour investigation, but not the cost of foundation retrofit, because we

assume that no retrofit will be required – this assumption will need to be confirmed by the engineer

conducting the scour investigation.



A detailed load rating is provided because the design load is not known for the entire bridge.

The rating is based on the assumptions that the immediate concerns, listed above, are addressed.


75



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Plate Girder (50’) E47 E53 12% Bending Plate Girder (50’) E53 E52 - Shear

Plate Girder (54’-4”) E66 E52 - Bending Plate Girder (54’-4”) E68 E50 - Shear

Plate Girder (60’) E90 E50 - Bending Plate Girder (60’) E63 E49 - Shear





Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper



Plate Girder (54’-4”) Rating not required, see results at 30mph Plate Girder (54’-4”) Rating not required, see results at 30mph

Plate Girder (60’) Rating not required, see results at 30mph Plate Girder (60’) Rating not required, see results at 30mph



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Plate Girder (50’) E47 E49 3%¹ Bending Plate Girder (50’) E53 E48 - Shear





Note 1: 3% overstress is considered acceptable; we recommend reducing the speed of 263 kip cars to 20

mph.


76



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper








Train Maximum Safe

Speed


Note 1)

4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip cars 10 mph N/A

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263 kip cars 20 mph N/A

3 - RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles 30 mph N/A

Note 1: We recommend that the poor ties be replaced.





77



Category of Work

Action Required Estimated

Cost of Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing


X Bridge annual visual inspections (by SVI forces) $0 X Replace 33 ties in poor condition and repair

refuge bays (cost excluded). The owner should consider complete deck replacement.

$0

X Conduct scour investigation $10,000 Subtotal All Loadings $15,000



Category of Work

Action Required Estimated

Cost of Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing

X Detailed bridge inspection in 2021 (investigate for cracks and corrosion loss in steel members, investigate timber ties and stringers).

$6,000

X Replace remaining timber ties on the bridge (cost excluded)

$0

X Clean debris on the bridge every 5 years. $6,000X Bridge annual visual inspections –(by SVI forces) $0 Subtotal All Loadings $12,000


78


Bridge 113.2 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges - Year 2031 to 2041, Passenger Loading, 263 kip and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






79


80

15 Mile 119.2 – Cook Creek (South Fork)


Bridge 119.20 is a single span open deck bridge over the South Fork of Cook Creek. The

superstructure consists of a 28’-7” deck plate girder span with timber structural ties. The bridge is

on a tangent alignment and is supported by closed concrete abutments.

The bridge was erected in 1914. In 1941 the span was replaced with an existing steel deck girder

span of unknown age.

Bridge Design Load: E-50 (per SVI inventory, could not confirm)

Current Bridge Load: 2-GP9 locomotives w/ 263 kip cars.




81


Detailed bridge inspection conducted in 2011. The inspection revealed no immediate concerns.

Inspection revealed minor corrosion in the steel girders, but no structurally significant damage.

Inspection also revealed the following:

Moss and ferns are growing on abutment seats.

Several poor ties.



Detailed load rating is provided because load effects of the assessment trains are greater than the

effects of the SVI inventory design load (design load also unconfirmed). In accordance with the

design criteria, we have evaluated the girders by checking sections with maximum moment and

maximum shear, as well as timber ties in flexure, shear and end bearing.

Detailed drawings showing accurate member sizes were not available to the evaluator; sizes were

obtained by field measurement conducted as a follow up to the bridge inspection program in

November 2011. While the measurements were intended to be as thorough as possible, the size of

each component could not be determined with certainty and engineering judgment was exercised

as required. A potential variation exists in the rating results that can only be eliminated if accurate

plans are procured.

Load rating result are not be shown for lighter assessment trains when a component’s load rating is

shown to be adequate for a heavier assessment train.





Deck Plate Girder (Steel)

E57 E55 - Bending

Deck Plate Girder (Steel)

E62 E61 - Shear

Timber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - Bending

Timber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - Horizontal

Shear Timber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - End Bearing


82


Train Maximum Safe




3 - RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles 30 mph N / A


Based on the age and expected service life of the structure, there is a possibility that this bridge will

need to be replaced in 20 years to maintain railway traffic. An estimated replacement cost for this

bridge is $558,000, including substructure elements. It is also possible that replacement will not be

required before 2041, particularly in the event that traffic is light and the maintenance and repairs

suggested in this report are complete.

Based on the intent to extend the life of the railway structures to their maximum utility, the

estimated replacement cost for this bridge has not been included as a singular cost in the tables

below. The potential cost for replacement is captured within the steel bridge replacement

allowance in the project summary tables.


Bridge 119.2 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021 Passenger Loading, 263 kip Loading and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing


X Regular visual inspection (by SVI forces). $0

X Replace all bridge ties (open deck and tangent

alignment, cost excluded). $0

X Remove moss and ferns from abutment seats. $3,000



83


Bridge 119.2 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges Years 2021 to 2031 Passenger Loading, 263 kip Loading and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






Bridge 119.2 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges Years 2031 to 2041 Passenger Loading, 263 kip Loading and 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






84


85

16 Mile 119.50 – Cook Creek (North Fork)

16.1 Mile 119.50 - Description

Bridge 119.50 is a single span open deck bridge over Cook Creek (North Fork). The superstructure

consists of a 24 ft timber stringer span with timber bearing ties. The bridge is on a tangent

alignment and is supported by closed concrete abutments.

The bridge was originally built in 1913. The timber stringers were replaced in 1977.






86


Detailed bridge inspection conducted in 2011. The inspection revealed the following immediate

concern:

South wingwall is being undermined.


Inspection revealed that the timber stringers are in good condition with only minor splits. No

structurally significant damage was observed.


Several ties were counted as poor.



Detailed load rating is provided for the timber spans because the design load could not be

confirmed and load effects of the assessment trains may be greater than the effects of the design

load. In accordance with the design criteria, we have evaluated the stringers for flexure, horizontal

shear and end bearing.

Load rating result will not be shown for lighter assessment trains when a component’s load rating is



Normal Rating

Component

Cooper

Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Timber Stringers E64 E55 - Bending

Timber Stringers >E70 E61 - Horizontal

Shear

Timber Stringers >E70 E61 - End Bearing


87


Train Maximum Safe


4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip cars 30 mph N / A



Notes:

1. The Rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed below will

be completed.

16.4 Mile 119.50 –Optional Bridge Replacement

Based on the age of the structure (stringers replaced in 1977), we estimated that this bridge will

need to be replaced in 10-20 years to maintain railway traffic. An estimated replacement cost for

this bridge is $350,000, including removal/erection of substructure elements. It is possible that only

the timber superstructure will require replacement and the existing concrete abutments can be re-

used; however, without more detailed knowledge of the foundation system (i.e. timber piles or

spread footings) and its condition, substructure replacement should be anticipated in order to

comply with modern codes. It is also possible that replacement will not be required before 2041,

particularly in the event that traffic is light and the maintenance and repairs suggested in this report

are complete.



below. One third of the replacement cost has been included in both the 2021-2031 and 2031-2041

time periods to account for significant repair work performed in lieu of full replacement.


88


Bridge 119.50 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021 – Passenger Loading, 263 kip Loading, 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Investigate undermined wingwalls at south

abutment. $5,000





Bridge 119.50 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges Years 2021 to 2031 – Passenger Loading, 263 kip Loading, 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing




X Repair / Partially Replace bridge with new

structure (1/3 br. Assumed replaced). $120,000



89



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing



X Repair / Partially Replace bridge with new

structure (1/3 br. Assumed replaced). $120,000




90


91

17 Mile 120.20 – Rosewell Creek


Bridge 120.20 is a single span open deck bridge over Rosewell Creek. The superstructure consists

of a 67’-8” steel half deck plate girder span with timber structural ties. The bridge is on a tangent


The bridge was originally built in 1914.






92



Inspection revealed minor surface corrosion in the steel girders with some section loss in the

bottom flange angles. No structurally significant damage was observed.


18 ties were counted as poor, ties generally in fair condition..

Moderate corrosion on bearings and bottom flange near bearings.

Anchor bolt at SE bearing is bent slightly.



Detailed load rating is provided because there is a concern that the knee braces in place may not

have adequate stiffness to ensure stability of the compression flange of the girders. In accordance

with the design criteria, we have evaluated the girders by checking sections with maximum moment

and maximum shear, as well as timber ties in flexure, shear and end bearing.



January 2012. While the measurements were intended to be as thorough as possible, the size of



plans are procured.

The load rating result is not be shown for lighter assessment trains when a component’s load rating

is shown to be adequate for a heavier assessment train.


93





Deck Plate Girder* E70 E47 - Bending Deck Plate Girder* E70 E49 - Shear

Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E33 E47 42% Bending Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E70 E49 - Shear

Timber Structural Tie E71 E72 1% 1 Bending



* Deck plate girder rating presented for existing girder if knee braces were stiffened to provide

adequate lateral support. 1 1% overstress is considered acceptable.





Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E37 E47 27% Bending Deck Plate Girder (as-is) >E70 E49 - Shear

Timber Structural Tie E71 E72 1% 1 Bending



1 1% overstress is considered acceptable.










Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E37 E43 16% Bending Deck Plate Girder (as-is) >E70 E45 - Shear

Ratings (3 – RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles @ 30 mph)




Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E33 E17 - Bending Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E70 E18 - Shear


94


Train Maximum Safe


4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip cars 10 mph Knee Brace

Strengthening (note 1)




Notes:

1 The steel knee braces in place on the steel girders have inadequate stiffness. The knee

braces should be stiffened to provide adequate restraint and stability to the girders.



need to be replaced in the next 20 years to maintain railway traffic. An estimated replacement cost

for this bridge is $1,213,000, including substructure elements. It is also possible that replacement

will not be required before 2041, particularly in the event that traffic is light and the maintenance

and repairs suggested in this report are complete.






95


Bridge 120.20 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021 – Passenger Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Replace 18 ties in poor condition (cost excluded). $0

X Replace bottom flange angles & plate that are

corroded near bearings. $40,000

X Replace corroded bearings (moderate corrosion

in 2011). $20,000

Passenger Loading $63,000

Bridge 120.20 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021 –

263 kip Loading, 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing




X Add flange plate to knee braces to increase

lateral stiffness. $20,000

X Replace bottom flange angles & plate that are

corroded near bearings. $40,000

X Replace corroded bearings (moderate corrosion

in 2011). $20,000

263 kip / 286 kip Loadings $83,000


96



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing



X Replace remaining bridge ties (cost excluded) $0





Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






97


98

18 Mile 122.00 – Waterloo Creek


Bridge 122.0 is a single span open deck bridge over Waterloo Creek. The superstructure consists

of a 64 ft steel half deck plate girder span with timber structural ties. The bridge is on a tangent


The bridge was originally built in 1928 and the steel was erected in 1930 from an existing span of

unknown age.






99



concern:

South abutment is being undermined; substructure drawings suggest the abutment may be

supported by timber piles, but this has not been confirmed.


Inspection revealed minor surface corrosion in the steel girders however no structurally significant

damage was observed.


South wingwalls are being undermined similarly to the abutment.

Four ties were counted as poor.

Expansion bearings appear to be frozen.

Lateral bracing system is corroded with moderate section loss.

Gusset plates in lateral bracing system are severely corroded.












plans are procured.




100

Ratings (4 – GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip Cars @ 30 mph)


Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Deck Plate Girder* E55* E48 - Bending Deck Plate Girder* E54* E50 - Shear


Timber Structural Tie E72 E72 - Bending



Note: *Deck plate girder rating presented for existing girder if knee braces were stiffened to provide adequate

lateral support.

Ratings (4 – GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip Cars @ 10 mph)


Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper



Timber Structural Tie E72 E72 - Bending





Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper





Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E29 E17 - Bending Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E54 E18 - Shear

Ratings (3 – RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles @ 30mph)


Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E29 E17 - Bending

Deck Plate Girder (as-is) E54 E18 - Shear


101


Train Maximum Safe

Speed


note 1)






Notes:

1 The Rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed below

will be completed.

2 The steel knee braces in place on the steel girders have inadequate stiffness. The knee braces

should be stiffened to provide adequate restraint and stability to the girders.




for this bridge is $857,000, including substructure elements. It is also possible that replacement will

not be required before 2041, particularly in the event that traffic is light and the maintenance and

repairs suggested in this report are complete.






102



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Investigate scour. $10,000

X Restore undermined south abutment and place

rip-rap to prevent future damage. $30,000



X Replace corroded gusset plates located at

various locations throughout the bridge. $10,000

X Replace members of lateral bracing system that

are corroded. $40,000

X Replace frozen expansion bearings. $10,000

Subtotal Passenger Loading $103,000

Bridge 122.00 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021 –

263 kip Loading, 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Investigate scour . $10,000

X Restore undermined south abutment and place

rip-rap to prevent future damage. $30,000

X Add flange plate to knee braces to increase

lateral stiffness. $15,000


103

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Replace corroded gusset plates located at

various locations throughout the bridge. $10,000

X Replace members of lateral bracing system that

are corroded. $40,000


Subtotal 263 kip / 286 kip Loadings $118,000



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






104

18.7 Mile 122.00 – Cost Summary Tables: Years 2031 to 2041


Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






105


106

19 Mile 123.00 – Coal Creek


Bridge 123.00 is a three-span open deck bridge over Coal Creek. The superstructure consists of a

30’-3” steel deck plate girder span, a 48’-10” steel deck plate girder span and a 33’-3” steel deck

plate girder span. All spans carry structural timber ties. The bridge is on a tangent alignment and

is supported by closed concrete abutments and concrete piers

The bridge was originally built in 1914 with span replacements in 1925 and 1941 using existing

deck plate girders of unknown age.






107



concern:

Undermining at base of piers; substructure drawings suggest the abutment may be supported

by timber piles, but this has not been confirmed.





A total of twenty-nine ties were counted as poor.

Bearings are moderately corroded; expansion bearings appear to be frozen.







Detailed drawings showing accurate member sizes were not available to the evaluator for the 34’

and 50’ spans; sizes were obtained by field measurement conducted as a follow up to the bridge

inspection program in January 2012. While the measurements were intended to be as thorough as

possible, the size of each component could not be determined with certainty and engineering

judgment was exercised as required. A potential variation exists in the rating results that can only

be eliminated if accurate plans are procured.




108





31’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) E59 E56 - Bending 31’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) E68 E61 - Shear 50’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E54 - Bending 50’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E53 - Shear 34’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E57 - Bending 34’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E60 - Shear

Timber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - Bending




Train Maximum Safe

Speed


note 1)




Notes:

1. The Rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed

below will be completed.




for this bridge is $2,491,000, including substructure elements. It is also possible that replacement

will not be required before 2041, particularly in the event that traffic is light and the maintenance

and repairs suggested in this report are complete.






109



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Investigate scour at Pier 2. $10,000

X Place rip-rap at Pier 2 to inhibit further

undermining. $30,000







Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






110



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






111


112

20 Mile 124.10 – Mill Creek


Bridge 124.10 is a two-span open deck bridge over Mill Creek. The superstructure consists of a

65’-4” steel deck plate girder span and a 106’-04” steel deck truss span. All spans carry structural

timber ties. The bridge is on a tangent alignment and is supported by closed concrete abutments

and a concrete pier.

The bridge was originally built in 1925. In 1941 the truss span was reinforced to account for the

heavier loading.

Bridge Design Load: E-50 (deck plate girder and steel truss)





113






Minor debris around the bearings.

Twelve total ties counted as poor.

Bearings are moderately corroded; expansion bearings appear to be frozen.

Gusset plates in the Span 1 bracing system are pitted.



Detailed load rating is provided for the truss span because load effects of the assessment trains in

comparison with the effects of the design load cannot be determined without an analysis. We have

evaluated the truss members by checking axial tension and compression. The ties bear directly on

the top chord of the truss, thus the top chord must be checked for combined bending and

compression.

Detailed load rating is provided for the deck plate girder span because load effects of the

assessment trains are nearly equal to load effects of the design load. In accordance with the


maximum shear. Timber structural ties on both the truss span and DPG span have been checked

in flexure, shear and end bearing.






plans are procured. The potential for variation is highest for the truss where more complexity

exists.




114



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E49 - Bending Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E50 - Shear

Truss Top Chord (U3U4) E35 E46 31% Bending &

Compression


Compression


Compression Truss Bottom Chord

(L0L2) E39 E46 18% Bending & Tension

Truss Bottom Chord (L2L4)

E38 E45 18% Bending & Tension

Truss Bottom Chord (L4L5’)


Truss Diagonals (L2U3) E51 E48 - Tension Truss Verticals (U2L2) >E70 E59 - Compression Timber Structural Tie

(DPG) >E80 E72 - Bending

Timber Structural Tie (DPG)

E73 E72 - Horizontal Shear


>E80 E72 - End Bearing

Timber Structural Tie (Truss)

>E80 E72 - Bending


>E80 E72 - Horizontal Shear




115



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper



Compression


Compression








Truss Diagonals (L2U3) E56 E48 - Tension Truss Verticals (U2L2) >E70 E59 - Compression



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper




Compression


Compression















>E80 E66 - Bending




116


Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper






Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper



Compression

Truss Top Chord (U4U5) E49 E46 - Bending &

Compression








Truss Diagonals (L2U3) E56 E44 - Tension Truss Verticals (U2L2) >E70 E54 - Compression

Ratings (3 - RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles @ 30 mph)






Compression


Compression



(L0L2) E39 E19 - Bending & Tension


E38 E19 - Bending & Tension


E32 E19 - Bending & Tension






117







>E80 E33 - Bending






Train Maximum Safe


4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286kip cars 10 mph Truss top chord (U3-U6), Truss

bottom chord (L0-L5’) (note 1)

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263kip cars 10 mph Truss top chord (U3-U4), Truss

bottom chord (L0-L5’) (note 1)


Notes:

1. Strengthening of certain truss top and bottom chord members is required to support 263 kip and

286 kip cars at 10 mph.


Based on the age and expected service life of the structure, there is a possibility that the deck plate

girder span and steel truss span will need to be replaced in 15-20 years and 20-30 years,

respectively, to maintain railway traffic. An estimated replacement cost for this structure in its

entirety is $3,518,000, including substructure elements. It is also possible that replacement will not

be required before 2041, particularly in the event that traffic is light and the maintenance and







118



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing





X Replace pitted gusset plates. $10,000


Bridge 124.10 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021 – 263 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing






X Strengthen truss members U3U4, L0L2, L2L4,

L4L5'. $240,000

263 kip Loading $275,000


119

Bridge 124.10 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021 – 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing






X Strengthen truss members U3U4, U4U5, U5U6,

L0L2, L2L4, L4L5'. $360,000

286 kip Loading $395,000



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing


Regular visual inspection (by SVI forces). $0

X Replace all bridge ties (cost excluded)




120



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






121


122

21 Mile 125.50 – Tsable River


Bridge 125.50 is a twenty-five span open deck bridge over Tsable River. The superstructure

consists of twenty-three 15 ft timber stringer spans, a 154’-6” steel deck truss span and a 100’-8”

steel deck plate girder span. The steel spans carry timber structural ties and the timber spans carry

timber bearing ties. The bridge is on a tangent alignment and is supported by closed concrete

abutments, intermediate timber frame bents and two concrete piers.

The bridge was originally built in 1914. In 1977 the timber trestle on the south approach was

replaced in kind and the timber trestle on the north approach was replaced with an existing deck

plate girder span.

Bridge Design Load: E-60 (timber trestle and steel deck plate girder); E-50 (steel truss)

Current Bridge Load: 2-GP9 locomotives w/ 263 kip cars




123


A bridge inspection conducted in 2011 revealed the following immediate concerns:

Heavy corrosion was found on pins during NDT testing.

Cracks were found in one diagonal member (L2L-U1L) and a turnbuckle in a Queen post truss;

one eye bar member (L3L-L4L) had an irregular groove that may be from fabrication.

Only a sampling of timber elements could be inspected in detail in 2011.


Inspection revealed minor surface corrosion in the steel spans and minor deterioration in the timber

spans. No structurally significant damage was observed.


Concrete wingwalls are leaning approximately 1” at top of walls.

Several of the posts on the timber trestle were found to contain section loss due to rot.

Cross brace is split on the east side of Bent 22 (one story down from top).

Cross brace is fractured at Bent 23 (one story down from top).

16 total ties counted as poor.

Expansion bearings at deck truss span appear to be frozen.

Pitting in top plate of deck truss top chord.



Detailed load rating is provided for the truss span because load effects of the assessment trains in

comparison with the effects of the design load cannot be determined without an analysis. We have

evaluated the truss members by checking axial tension and compression. The truss floor system

has been evaluated for maximum moment and shear.

Detailed load rating is not provided for the deck plate girder span because load effects of the

assessment trains are less than load effects of the design load.

Detailed load rating is provided for a typical timber trestle span because load effects of the

assessment trains are greater than load effects of the design load. In accordance with the design

criteria, we have evaluated the stringers for flexure, horizontal shear and end bearing. The timber

cap has been evaluated for compression perpendicular to its grain above the posts.


124






plans are procured. The potential variation is highest for the truss span where more complexities

exist.





Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


101’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) E60* E42 - Bending 101’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) E60* E47 - Shear

Timber Stringer (typ.) E61 E61 - Bending Timber Stringer (typ.) >E70 E64 - Horizontal ShearTimber Stringer (typ.) >E70 E63 - End Bearing

Timber Cap (typ.) >E70 E54 - Bearing on PostsSteel Floorbeam E57 E55 - Bending Steel Floorbeam E57 E55 - Shear

Steel Stringer E38 E57 50% Bending Steel Stringer >E70 E60 - Shear

Truss Top Chord (U4U5) E45 E43 - Compression Truss Bottom Chord (L3L4) E40 E44 10% Tension

Truss Bottom Chord (L3L4**) E31 E44 42% Tension Truss Bottom Chord (L5L6) E37 E43 16% Tension

Truss Diagonals (U2L3) E43 E45 5% Tension Truss Diagonals (U3L4) E42 E44 5% Tension Truss Verticals (U1L1) E36 E46 28% Compression Truss Verticals (U2L2) E42 E45 7% Compression Truss Counters (L3U4) E39 E44 13% Tension Truss Counters (L4U5) E29 E37 28% Tension

Notes: *CCR not calculated, value based on bridge design loads.

**Rating for bottom chord member L3L4 where eye bar with crack was observed; rating omits cracked eye bar

from section (6 bars total, 5 contributing to calculated load capacity).


125



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper



Truss Top Chord (U4U5) E49 E43 - CompressionTruss Bottom Chord (L3L4) E44 E44 - Tension


Truss Diagonals (U2L3) E47 E45 - Tension Truss Diagonals (U3L4) E46 E44 - Tension Truss Verticals (U1L1) E39 E46 18% CompressionTruss Verticals (U2L2) E46 E45 - CompressionTruss Counters (L3U4) E43 E44 2% Tension Truss Counters (L4U5) E32 E37 16% Tension

Note: Only members that did not rate for 286 kip cars at 30 mph shown in the above table.



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper






Truss Top Chord (U4U5) E45 E39 - Compression Truss Bottom Chord (L3L4) E40 E40 - Tension


Truss Diagonals (U3L4) E42 E41 - Tension Truss Verticals (U1L1) E36 E43 19% Compression Truss Verticals (U2L2) E42 E41 - Compression Truss Counters (L3U4) E39 E40 3% Tension Truss Counters (L4U5) E29 E34 17% Tension

Notes:

*CCR not calculated, value based on bridge design loads.

**Rating for bottom chord member L3L4 where eyebar with crack was observed; rating omits cracked eyebar from

section (6 bars total, 5 contributing to calculated load capacity).


126



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper



Truss Bottom Chord (L3L4**) E34 E40 18% Tension Truss Bottom Chord (L5L6) E40 E39 - Tension

Truss Verticals (U1L1) E39 E43 10% CompressionTruss Counters (L3U4) E43 E40 - Tension Truss Counters (L4U5) E32 E34 6% Tension

Note: Only members that did not rate for 263 kip cars at 30 mph shown in the above table.

Ratings (3 – RDC-1 Passenger Vehicles @ 30 mph)







Steel Stringer E38 E20 - Bending Steel Stringer >E70 E22 - Shear

Truss Top Chord (U4U5) E45 E12 - Compression Truss Bottom Chord (L3L4) E40 E14 - Tension

Truss Bottom Chord (L3L4**) E31 E14 - Tension Truss Diagonals (U3L4) E42 E14 - Tension Truss Verticals (U1L1) E36 E15 - Compression Truss Counters (L4U5) E29 E15 - Tension

Notes

* CCR not calculated, value based on bridge design loads.

**Rating for bottom chord member L3L4 where eyebar with crack was observed; rating omits cracked eyebar from

section (6 bars total, 5 contributing to calculated load capacity).


127


Train Maximum Safe

Speed Required Retrofit (see note 1)

4 - GP-9 locomotives and 286 kip cars 10 mph Replace truss (see note 2)

2 - GP-9 locomotives and 263 kip cars 10 mph Replace truss (see note 2)


Notes:

1 The Rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed below will be

completed.

2 Span replacement is recommended for 263kip and 286kip traffic based on the analysis results and common

industry practice for handling similar inadequate aged steel pin-connected truss structures. Note that it may

be possible to strengthen the inadequate truss members; however, any considerations would require a

significant amount of complex engineering and design that is outside the scope of this assessment.


The steel deck truss span was erected at 125.5 in 1914; fabrication was an unknown time prior to

1914. The truss is likely over 100 years old. Multiple members in the truss are either overstressed

or nearly overstressed for freight trains, based on the calculation results presented above. Field

inspection and NDT revealed cracks in various members and an overall poor condition of the truss

members. Based on these items, we recommend that this bridge be replaced if it is to facilitate

263kip and 286kip freight trains. An estimated replacement cost for the steel truss span is

$2,850,000, provided the existing concrete piers are adequate to support freight traffic (a pier

investigation is recommended). The bridge replacement is not expected if the bridge will be used

only for the specified passenger trains, provided the repairs and maintenance discussed in this

report are completed.

The timber trestle approach span is already 35 years old. It is likely that replacement will be

required in the next 10-20 years. An estimated replacement cost for the 343’ timber trestle is

$2,900,000, including substructure elements. Based on the intent to extend the life of the railway

structures to their maximum utility, the estimated replacement cost for the timber trestle has not

been included as a singular cost in the tables below. One third of the replacement cost has been

included in both the 2021-2031 and 2031-2041 time periods to account for significant repair work

performed in lieu of full replacement.

The steel girder span is not expected to require replacement in the next 30 years.


128



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Replace cracked eyebar member (found during

NDT testing in 2011). $20,000

X Replace diagonal member with groove

discontinuity (found during NDT testing in 2011). $20,000

X Further investigate heavy corrosion on pins. $15,000

X Replace missing pins in top lateral bracing (Span

24). $1,000

X Perform special timber assessment of all timber

load carrying elements. $35,000

X Replace 16 poor ties (cost excluded). $0

X Monitor leaning concrete wingwalls at north

abutment. $2,000

X Replace timber post segments that exhibit

section loss. $25,000

X Replace broken cross bracing at Bent 23 (one

level from top). $500

X Replace split cross bracing on east side of Bent

22 (one level from top). $500

X Replace frozen expansion bearings at Span 24. $10,000

X Replace corroded top splice plate of top chord

(Span 24). $2,000

X Replace pitted gusset plates (Span 25). $40,000



129

Bridge 125.50 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges until Year 2021 – 263 kip Loading, 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Perform special timber assessment of all timber

load carrying elements. $35,000

X Replace 16 poor ties (cost excluded). $0

X Monitor leaning concrete wingwalls at north

abutment. $2,000

X Replace timber post segments that exhibit

section loss. $25,000

X Replace broken cross bracing at Bent 23 (one

level from top). $500

X Replace split cross bracing on east side of Bent

22 (one level from top). $500

X Replace pitted gusset plates (Span 25). $40,000

X Replace truss span (span 24). $2,850,000

263 kip / 286 kip Loading $2,958,000


130



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing



X Replace remaining ties (cost excluded). $0

X Detailed bridge inspection in 2021 (steel). $5,000

X Detailed bridge inspection and timber element

replacements in timber trestle approach. $970,000


21.7 Mile 125.50 – Cost Summary Table: Year 2031 to 2041


Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing



X Replace remaining ties (cost excluded). $0

X Detailed bridge inspection in 2031 (steel). $5,000

X Detailed bridge inspection and timber element

replacements in timber trestle approach. $970,000



131


132

22 Mile 126.15 – Buckley Bay Road


Bridge 126.15 is a single span ballast deck bridge over Buckley Bay Road. The superstructure

consists of a 32’-1” steel through plate girder with timber bearing ties. The bridge is on a tangent


The bridge was originally built in 1998.

Bridge Design Load: E-80





133







Detailed load rating was not performed because load effects of the Assessment Trains are less

than the design load. This is summarized in the 286kip table below.




Bridge Component Component

Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


65’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) E80* E48 - Bending

65’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) E80* E50 - Shear

Note: *CCR not calculated, value based on bridge design loads.


Train Maximum Safe






It is unlikely that this bridge will need to be replaced in the next 30 years; therefore, we are not

providing a cost estimate for the replacement of this bridge.


134



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Replace all bridge ties (ballast deck and tangent




Bridge 126.15 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges Years 2021 - 2031 – Passenger Loading, 263 kip Loading, 286 kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






135



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






136


137

23 Mile 127.60 – Hindoo Creek


Bridge 127.60 is a single span open deck bridge over Hindoo Creek. The superstructure consists

of a 19’-6” timber stringer span with timber bearing ties. The bridge is on a tangent alignment and

is supported by closed concrete abutments.

The bridge was originally built in 1926. The timber stringers were replaced in 1974.


Current Bridge Load: 2-GP9 locomotives w/ 263kip cars.




138



concern:

The apron in front of the abutments drops off approximately 6 feet due to scour.


Inspection revealed that the timber stringers are in good condition and no structurally significant



Six ties were counted as poor.



Detailed load rating is provided for the timber spans because the design load could not be

confirmed and load effects of the assessment trains may be greater than the effects of the design

load. In accordance with the design criteria, we have evaluated the stringers for flexure, horizontal

shear and end bearing.





Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


Timber Stringers E70 E57 - Bending Timber Stringers >E70 E59 - Horizontal ShearTimber Stringers >E70 E59 - End Bearing


139


Train Maximum Safe





Notes:

1 The Rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed below will

be completed.


Based on the age of the structure (stringers replaced in 1974), we estimated that this bridge will

need to be replaced in 10-20 years to maintain railway traffic. An estimated replacement cost for

this bridge is $472,000, including removal/erection of substructure elements. Salvaging the

substructure elements may be problematic due to channel degradation.



below. One third of the replacement cost has been included in both the 2021-2031 and 2031-2041

time periods to account for significant repair work performed in lieu of full replacement.


140



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing



X Investigate scour at abutments. $10,000

X

Restore fill beneath aprons in front of abutments;

place ballast to inhibit future erosion (action

expected, but may not be required pending

expert investigation).

$30,000






Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing



X Detailed bridge inspection and element

replacements. $157,000



141



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing



X Detailed bridge inspection and element

replacements. $157,000



142


143

24 Mile 131.10 – Washer Creek


Bridge 131.10 is a three-span open deck bridge over Washer Creek. The superstructure consists

of a 28’-2” steel deck plate girder span, a 49’-4” steel deck plate girder span and a 28’-2” steel deck

plate girder span. All spans carry timber structural ties. The bridge is on a tangent alignment and

is supported by spill-through concrete abutments and concrete piers.

The bridge was originally built in 1914. In 1926 approach spans were added new steel deck plate

girders. In 1941 the flanges of the center span were reinforced for heavier loading.






144



Inspection revealed minor corrosion on all steel surfaces however no structurally significant



Erosion of embankment at upstream side on north end of Pier 2; substructure drawings

suggest the pier may be supported by timber piles, but this cannot be confirmed.

Fourteen ties counted as poor.

Bent end plate at Span 3.

Exterior web stiffeners are bent at bottom in multiple locations (Span 2).












plans are procured.




145



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


50’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) E59 E54 - Bending 50’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) E53 E53 - Shear 30’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) E67 E55 - Bending 30’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E61 - Shear

Timber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - Bending Timber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - Horizontal ShearTimber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - End Bearing


Train Maximum Safe








bridge is $1,914,000, including substructure elements. It is also possible that replacement will not








146



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing






X Monitor condition of bent end plate at Span 3. $1,000

X Monitor bent intermediate stiffeners in Span 2. $1,000

X Pier scour protection. $100,000

X Restore eroded embankment at upstream side of

Pier 2. $100,000




Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






147



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






148


149

25 Mile 135.10 – Trent River


Bridge 135.10 is a five-span open deck bridge over Trent River. The superstructure consists of two

73’-1” steel deck plate girder spans, two 43 ft steel deck plate girder spans and a 48 ft steel deck

plate girder span. All spans carry timber structural ties. The bridge is on a tangent alignment and

is supported by spill-through concrete abutments and steel bent towers.

The bridge was originally built in 1913. The steel deck plate girders in the end spans were replaced

in 1928.






150



concern:

Footing of SW leg at Tower 1 has been undermined; substructure drawings suggest the footing

may be supported by timber piles, but this has not been confirmed.


Inspection revealed minor corrosion on all steel surfaces however no structurally significant



Slope erosion occurring in front of south abutment.

West wingwall of north abutment and both south wingwalls are being undermined slightly.

Heavy corrosion at base and top of steel tower legs.

Forty-two ties counted as poor.

One broken floor plank in refuge bay.












plans are procured.




151



Cooper Rating

Eqv. Cooper


45’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E55 - Bending 45’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E55 - Shear 49’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E55 - Bending 49’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E54 - Shear 75’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E46 - Bending 75’ Deck Plate Girder (Steel) >E70 E49 - Shear

Timber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - Bending Timber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - Horizontal ShearTimber Structural Tie >E80 E72 - End Bearing


Train Maximum Safe





Notes:

1. The Rating provided in this report is based on the assumption that the Essential Repairs listed below will

be completed.

2. Should not be operated under significant wind load.




bridge is $4,320,000, including substructure elements. It is also possible that replacement will not





below. The potential cost for replacement is captured within the Unallocated Rehabilitation

Allowance in the project summary tables.


152



Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al

Rep

airs

(I

mm

edia

te)

Pro

ject

ed

Rep

airs

Str

eng

then

ing




X Pier scour protection at SW leg of Tower 1. $100,000



X Restore undermined wingwalls. $25,000

X Install measures to arrest erosion in front of

south abutment before it reaches the abutment. $100,000

X Monitor corroded steel at top of towers. $2,000

X Replace broken floor plank in refuge bay. $500



Bridge 135.10 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges Years 2021 - 2031 – Passenger Loading, 263kip Loading, 286kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






153


Bridge 135.10 – Projected Cost Summary to Operate Bridges Years 2031 - 2041 – Passenger Loading, 263kip Loading, 286kip Loading

Category of Work

Action Required

Estimated

Cost of

Action

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Ess

enti

al R

epai

rs

(Im

med

iate

)

Pro

ject

ed R

epai

rs

or

Rep

lace

men

t

Str

eng

then

ing






154

REPORT

A-1

Appendix A - Detailed List of Structures

E&N Railway Bridge List

Bridge Inventory

# Mileage Year Built Description of Structure TypeLength (feet)

Height (feet)

Name of Crossing

Victoria Subdivision1 1.30 1914 1-45' HDPG 56 15 Herewood St 2 4.00 2010 1-40' BDHDPG 44 17 Hwy 1A 3 4.50 1961 1-45' BDHDPG 45 18 Helmeken Road 4 5.20 1998 1-65' BDTPG 65 21 Burnside Rd 5 5.34 1998 3 BDTPG (1-89'; 1-118'; 1-126') 220 27 Island Hwy 6 5.45 1998 1-65' BDTPG 78 26 Thetis Lake Rd 7 5.80 1998 1-106' BDTPG 90 21 Six Mile Rd 8 14.00 1912 529' Pin/Cantilever 529 246 Niagra Canyon 9 14.90 1914 2-50'DPG; 2-75' DPG; 2-106' DPG 463 183 Arbutus Canyon

10 18.20 1935 1-16' Posted Trestle 17 7 Unnamed

Watercourse 11 26.80 2002 1-33' HDPG 34 14 Shawnigan Lake Rd

12 28.20 1907 1-40' HDPG 44 20 Creek from

Shawnigan Lake

13 28.40 1907 1-43' HDPG 44 18 Creek from

Shawnigan Lake

14 28.60 1907 1-43' HDPG 44 17 Creek from

Shawnigan Lake 15 29.80 1978 1-47' BDPG 48 18 Northgate Rd 16 35.60 1908 1-28' HDPG 28 46 Koksilah Rd

17 37.60 1965 1-75' Timber Pile Trestle 75 20 Koksilah Overfow

Channel 18 37.80 1940 1-157' Thru Truss 158 22 Koksilah River 19 39.30 1908/188? 1-219' Pin Con Truss 224 32 Cowichan River

20 40.60 1940 1-38' HDPG 38 11 Unnamed

Watercourse 21 46.60 1973 1-45' Pile Trestle 45 11 Overflow 22 46.80 1940 1-30' DPG 31 13 Whitehouse Creek 23 47.90 1909 1-155' Thru Truss 157 23 Chemainus River 24 60.70 1915 1-106' Thru Truss (Pony) 107 38 Harrison Creek

25 64.40 1911 1-26' IB, 1-76' Deck Truss 103 30 Lochner Rd & Haslam

Crk 26 65.10 1909 1-129' DPT; 1-40' Rolled Beam 200 112 Nanaimo River 27 79.10 Timber Pile Trestle 85 21 Dumont rd 28 79.90 Timber Pile Trestle 210 26 Green Lake 29 86.90 DPG 66 20 Bonell Creek 30 87.20 Steel Girders & Beams 46 22 Hamilton Creek 31 93.00 3-TD Steel Structure 335 80 Englishman River

Page 1 of 3


Bridge Inventory


Height (feet)

Name of Crossing

32 98.60 1913240' Framed Timber Trestle; 2-45'DPG/ 1-75' DPG (E50?); 570'

Framed Timber Trestle1063 92 French Creek

33 103.70 1913 2-45' DPG; 1-60' DPG; 4-75' DPG 450 132 Little Qualicum River

34 110.70 1913 3-75'DPG; 2-45' DPG 316 97 Big Qualicum River 35 113.20 1914 1-54'DPG; 1-50' DPG; 1-60' DPG 167 55 Nile Creek

36 119.20 1914 1-30' DPG 31 14 Cook Creek south

fork

37 119.50 1913 28' Glulam Stringers 30 13 Cook Creek north fork

38 120.20 1914 1-70' HDPG 71 25 Rosewell Creek 39 122.00 1928 1-65' HDPG 66 16 Waterloo Creek 40 123.00 1914 1-31' DPG; 1-34' DPG; 1-50' DPG 118 35 Coal Creak 41 124.10 1925 1-65' DPG; 1-106' DT 173 40 Mill Creek

42 125.50 19141-101' DPG; 1-154' DT (E50?); 315'

FT; 2-14'FT603 75 Tsable River

43 126.15 1998 1-65' BDPG 66 25 Buckley Bay Rd 44 127.60 1974 21' Timber Stringer Deck 21 25 Hindoo Creek 45 131.10 1914 1-50' DPG; 2-30' DPG 111 13 Washer Creek

46 135.10 19142-45' DPG; 1-75' DPG; 1-49'DPG;1-75'

DPG289 80 Trent River

Page 2 of 3


Bridge Inventory


Height (feet)

Name of Crossing

Wellcox Spur47 0.69 1953 4-15' PT; 2-53' DPG 168 25 Old Island Hwy 48 1.02 1953/69 4-15' PT(69); 1-53' DPG (53) 104 32 Chase River

Page 3 of 3

This page intentionally blank. Formatted for double-sided printing.

REPORT

B-1

Appendix B - Typical Rail Car Loading on Victoria Subdivision, Vancouver Island, BC

63,400 63,400 63,400 63,400 63,400 63,400 63,400 63,400 65,750 65,750 65,750 65,750 65,750 65,75065,750 65,750 65,750 65,750 65,750 65,750 65,750 65,75065,750 65,750 65,750 65,750 65,750

9.00 9.00 9.00 9.0031.00 3.58 3.58 31.00 3.58 4.92 5.00 35.75 5.00 4.92 4.92 5.00 35.75 5.00 4.92 4.92 5.00 35.75 5.00 4.92 4.92 5.00 35.75 5.00 4.92 4.92 5.00 35.75 5.00

GP-9 Locomotive GP-9 Locomotive 55 foot Box Car 55 foot Box Car 55 foot Box Car 55 foot Box Car 55 foot Box Car

Typical 263,000 Pound Loading

- Two typical locomotives

- Typically 40 railcars

- Locomotive Axle loading = 63,400 pounds

- Rail car Axle loading = 65,750 pounds

- Measurements in feet and tenths of feet

71,500 71,500 71'500 71,500

5.00 35.75 5.00 4.92

4.92

5.00 35.75 5.00 4.924.92

5.00 35.75

55 foot Box Car 55 foot Box Car 55 foot Box Car


- Four typical locomotives, high horsepower GP-9 platform

- Typically 50 railcars

- Locomotive Axle loading = 63,400 pounds

- Rail car Axle loading = 71,500 pounds


71,500 71,500 71'500 71,500 71,500 71,500

8.50 51.009.75

RDC-1 Passanger Vehicle


- Typically two passenger vehicles

- Future growth could require Third vehicle

- RDC-1 Axle loading = 32,500 pounds


32,500 32,500 32,500 32,500

8.50 9.75 8.50 51.009.75


32,500 32,500 32,500 32,500

8.50 9.75 8.50 51.009.75


32,500 32,500 32,500 32,500

8.50 9.75

63,400 63,400 63,400 63,400

9.00 9.0031.00 3.5863,400 63,400 63,400 63,400

9.00 9.0031.00 3.583.58

63,400 63,400 63,400 63,400

9.00 9.0031.00 3.583.58

GP-9 Platform Equivalent Locomotive GP-9 Platform Equivalent Locomotive GP-9 Platform Equivalent Locomotive

63,400 63,400 63,400 63,400

9.00 9.0031.00 3.58

3.58

GP-9 Platform Equivalent Locomotive

4.92


REPORT

C-1 P:\20112892\00_Insp_Assessment\Engineering\05.00_Design\Evaluations\Report\Ph 4_Final_2012-Feb-15\rpt_mot_E&N_Eval_Ph4_20120215_nc.doc

Appendix C - Equivalent Cooper's E Load Diagrams


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Equ

ival

ent

Co

op

er's

E L

oad

Span Length (ft)

Equivalent Cooper's E Load for Bending

4 GP9 & 286 (55ft) Equiv. Cooper (Moment)

2 GP9 & 263 (55ft) Equiv. Cooper (Moment)

3 RDC Equiv. Cooper (Moment)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Equ

ival

ent

Co

op

er's

E L

oad

Span Length (ft)

Equivalent Cooper's E Load for Shear

4 GP9 & 286 (55ft) Equiv. Cooper (Shear)

2 GP9 & 263 (55ft) Equiv. Cooper (Shear)

3 RDC Equiv. Cooper (Shear)

Documents

Phase 4 - Evaluation Report, Bridge Inspection and