The only possible option is to repair the Vyšehrad Bridge

Dear Minister,
allow me to start by expressing my gratitude for your personal engagement, which has allowed at least part of the expert community to participate in the debate about the future of the railway bridge under Vyšehrad, albeit in the form of a non-binding and limited discussion at the presentation organized on January 18 of this year by the Railway Administration at the National Technical Museum.
This step enabled the expert community to at least partially expose the intentions of the commission that decided about the bridge behind closed doors and completely incompetently in relation to heritage preservation. Furthermore, it allowed, thanks to the presentation by Associate Professor Ing. Tomáš Rotter, CSc., to inform the public about the catastrophic result of the Railway Administration's care for this significant cultural monument. The last repair of the arch structure of the Vyšehrad Bridge was carried out in 1987.
Since 2004, the collection of railway bridges on the route from Prague Main Railway Station to Prague Smíchov has been declared an immovable cultural monument. According to Act No. 20/1987 Coll. on State Heritage Care, the owner of a cultural monument is obliged to care for its preservation at their own expense, to maintain it in good condition, and to protect it from threats, damage, devaluation, or theft. Thus, for 19 years, the Railway Administration has been violating the law on state heritage care. It is clear that the organization under your authority has completely failed in its duty to properly care for the entrusted property. Repairs of the Vyšehrad Bridge will now necessarily be more expensive than if it had been maintained continuously. In our opinion, it is appropriate to verify whether the organization acted with the due diligence of a good manager, as is its legal obligation.

The Ministry of Culture has repeatedly refused to remove the heritage protection from the Vyšehrad Bridge. We see no reason for it to do so in the future, as it is clear that the bridge is repairable and operable. Without the removal of heritage protection, it is unthinkable that its arch structure could be removed. Given the above, the only possible variant is to repair the bridge.

The idea of the Railway Administration to leave only the pedestal of the heritage-protected bridge and thus preserve the monument is absolutely misguided and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the purpose of heritage protection and the principle of protecting the Prague Heritage Reserve, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The Vyšehrad Bridge features prominently in iconic Prague panoramas, and replacing it with a run-of-the-mill contemporary structure would significantly damage this panorama. The notion of relocating the steel structure of the bridge to another place is also nonsensical.

The World Heritage Committee closely monitors events in the Czech Republic and has explicitly requested the contracting state to be informed in advance of any intentions related to the Vyšehrad Bridge. The Secretariat of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) has already inquired about this matter with the Czech National Committee of ICOMOS. I must state that the Czech National Committee of ICOMOS considers the current situation concerning this bridge to be scandalous and very difficult to believe. The Railway Administration’s attempt to demolish the heritage-protected railway bridge and replace it with a new structure is setting the stage for international embarrassment.

Dear Minister,
we also welcome your initiative regarding the establishment of a technical colloquium for the Vyšehrad Bridge. However, our hopes that the Railway Administration will proceed transparently and in accordance with the legal regulations of the Czech Republic at your behest have unexpectedly been dashed. Even before the colloquium managed to meet for the first time, it became clear that on January 26, 2023, the Railway Administration secretly signed a contract with the company 2T engineering s.r.o., the subject of which is to finalize its competitive proposal, consisting of demolishing the Vyšehrad Bridge and replacing it with a new building. We would like to point out that the contract lists 85 laws, regulations, and other provisions that the contractor should follow; however, it does not mention the law on state heritage care, the regulation establishing the Prague Heritage Reserve, nor the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which is part of the legal order of the Czech Republic (Collection of Laws No. 159/1991 Coll.).

Available analyses indicate that the bridge is repairable. Expert recommendations vary in the scope of necessary element replacements, methodological approaches to repair, its lifespan, and estimated costs. While experts associated with the Railway Administration claim that the extent of element replacements would be considerable and thus the repair is not worthwhile, foreign experts propose a more modern method of repairing the bridge that would preserve far more of the original structure, be faster, cheaper, and not require interruption of the service on the line. They state that with proper care, the Vyšehrad Bridge can last another hundred years.

In assigning the competitive dialogue for the railway bridges under Vyšehrad, the Railway Administration completely ignored that this is a cultural monument, part of the Prague Heritage Reserve under UNESCO protection. It thereby set competition conditions that pre-emptively exclude proposals that would retain the existing bridge with its function and in its place. The Railway Administration was aware from studies commissioned by the city of Prague, as well as from its own materials, that the bridge is repairable. Therefore, it is not appropriate to shelter behind references to the course and results of the competition. Moreover, there are legitimate doubts about the regularity of the competition and the economic independence of the supposedly "independent" jury members from the Railway Administration, which is evidently promoting the demolition of the bridge and its replacement with a new structure.

The only correct approach to the monument lies in the responsible selection of a designer for the repair of the bridge. It is necessary to require that the bridge remains in its place and undergoes careful repair with the preservation of the maximum quantity of original parts. The selection criterion should be the experience of the authors with the repairs of similar historical truss bridge structures. If it were indeed proven that it is necessary to strengthen the railway connection under Vyšehrad with a third track, and the World Heritage Centre were to agree with this intention, then it would be appropriate to announce a proper international architectural competition for a parallel bridge, according to the conditions set by the heritage authorities and previously discussed with the World Heritage Centre.

In order for the technical colloquium, initiated by your suggestion, not to become just another alibi for the demolition of this cultural monument, it is, in our opinion, necessary for it to be your advisory body, completely independent of the Railway Administration. At the same time, it is essential that it focuses on specific steps for saving the bridge, not on an academically non-binding debate. Competent experts in the colloquium should address the following questions:

- How can the Vyšehrad Bridge be best repaired in a way that preserves its heritage value while also meeting current and expected railway operation?
- What innovative procedures, technologies, or products need to be implemented in Czech railways so that the Vyšehrad Bridge, as well as other valuable steel truss structures, can continue to serve?
- What modern standards and regulations need to be incorporated into the Czech legal order or the internal regulations of the Railway Administration so that historical bridge structures can be realistically assessed and sustainably and carefully managed?

The Czech Republic currently lacks standards for assessing existing historical bridge structures. This shortcoming could be easily resolved by adopting the established Swiss standard SIA269. The Railway Administration already has a similar experience when, in 2019, it adopted French technical regulations for high-speed railways (VRT). International experts can also recommend further standards for adoption, as well as advise on the best way to certify the solid track of the edilon sedra system in the Czech Republic, which is a modern element that would allow for full loading of the Vyšehrad Bridge with contemporary railway traffic while significantly reducing noise. Regarding participants in the colloquium, we recommend not overlooking international experts Ian Firth, Andreas Galmarini, and Eugen Brühwiler, who are familiar with the condition of the Vyšehrad Bridge and possess undeniable expertise in the field of repairing steel riveted structures. If the proceedings were influenced by persons economically connected with the Railway Administration, we would consider this a sign of its lack of objectivity, just as it was in the aforementioned competitive dialogue.

Dear Minister,
we believe in your vigorous intervention and are continually at your disposal.
Thank you for your understanding.

Respectfully,

Prof. Ing. arch. akad. arch. Václav Girsa
President of the Czech National Committee of ICOMOS