Graham Harrison wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:
"Marland" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT
Marland wrote:

This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility.
Both
Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician
we
have at the moment in all parties is just laughable.



As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources
of
TFL and Hammersmith
approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down.

Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again.

Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can
only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous
structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic
beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off.

All River traffic has been prohibited.

http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge

Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient but do exist the
alternatives for river users are far less.



It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.


I wasn't thinking of also preserving the original.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:03:35 on Mon, 14
Sep 2020, Marland remarked:

Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can
only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous
structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic
beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off.

All River traffic has been prohibited.

http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge

Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient exist the
alternatives for river users are far less.

Fewer, perhaps. Just the Regents Canal route I suspect.

And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the Canal
Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I know the
Boat Safety Certificate is now common between
CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit.

You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if you had
a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboat conversion and the
navigational skills accompanied by a suitable stomach it may be possible
to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then around the Coast but
the type of person who would want to undertake such an adventure would
probably be doing it regardless of the bridge closure.
The specialised sea going barge type one of which featured the Actor
Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit the Grand Union but is just a
little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon .

GH

In message , at 00:35:04 on Tue, 15
Sep 2020, Marland remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:03:35 on Mon, 14
Sep 2020, Marland remarked:

Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can
only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous
structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic
beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off.

All River traffic has been prohibited.

http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge

Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient exist the
alternatives for river users are far less.

Fewer, perhaps. Just the Regents Canal route I suspect.

And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the Canal
Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I know the
Boat Safety Certificate is now common between
CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit.

You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if you had
a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboat conversion and the
navigational skills accompanied by a suitable stomach it may be possible
to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then around the Coast but
the type of person who would want to undertake such an adventure would
probably be doing it regardless of the bridge closure.
The specialised sea going barge type one of which featured the Actor
Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit the Grand Union but is just a
little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon .

I think people stuck upstream of the bridge just need to cope with "****
happens". It's the people downstream, and away from their regular
moorings, who have the bigger problems. I wonder how far you could
shelter up the Lee with a larger craft.

Here we a Below Old Ford Locks (entering from Limehouse)

Length Beam Draught Headroom
28.8m 94ft 6" 7.8m 25ft 7" 3.5m 11ft 6" 2.6m 8ft 6"
--
Roland Perry

"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

--
DAS

D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to
full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much
stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

I suspect by now they are so ****ed off with having to fight their way
through Putney or Mortlake to cross the river that they will happily accept
any replacement bridge. Maybe that's the plan, but I doubt it.

--
DAS

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 20:40:46 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.

Thats what town "planners" thought here in the 50s and 60s and we ended up
with concrete ********s like coventry and birmingham. Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out towns
are tourists attractions.

On 15/09/2020 08:51, D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste
of time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to
full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical
replacement when you can put something useful there instead?


Because a visually identical replacement built to modern standards with
modern materials would be fit for purpose. The problem is the modern
habit of ignoring proper maintenance to save a shilling.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 20:40:46 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.

Thats what town "planners" thought here in the 50s and 60s and we ended up
with concrete ********s like coventry and birmingham. Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out towns
are tourists attractions.



I agree. The Continental approach of recreating their historic centres has
worked far better than our ugly brutalist concrete and cheap, colourful
cladding on office block slabs.

There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was deliberately built
to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge. And that's the one everyone
admires and wants in their pictures.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:38:13 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 15/09/2020 08:51, D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste
of time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to
full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical
replacement when you can put something useful there instead?


Because a visually identical replacement built to modern standards with
modern materials would be fit for purpose. The problem is the modern
habit of ignoring proper maintenance to save a shilling.

If we take that literally then I'm not convinced it would be fit for
purpose. It's a narrow two lane road with pedestrian walkways either
side. A fit for purpose bridge would have two wider lanes as well as
the pedestrian walkways. A truly fit for purpose would have 2 lanes
each way + pedestrian walkways. A compromise might be needed because
of road width immediately either side in which case three lanes with a
tidal flow system.