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.

On 15/09/2020 15:22, Graham Harrison wrote:
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.


Then we come into whether a bridge that allows an increase in traffic is
desirable in this day and age. Though widening the carriageways slightly
wouldn't detract from the visual aspect enough to be a problem.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:26 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 15/09/2020 15:22, Graham Harrison wrote:
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.


Then we come into whether a bridge that allows an increase in traffic is
desirable in this day and age. Though widening the carriageways slightly
wouldn't detract from the visual aspect enough to be a problem.

You're forgetting that by the time a replacement has been built we'll
all be "driving electric" so while there might be congestion there
won't be any of the nasty fumes around.

More seriously, the current bridge causes queues and congestion
heading towards Hammersmith but it's also true to say that Hammersmith
itself is a congestion spot so a wider bridge with more capacity is
going to provide some relief to Castlenau. Going the other way isn't
really an issue until you get to Barnes Common.