http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge


So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?



SteveTBM
--
========================================
In dentibus anticis frustum magnum spiniciae habes

"SteveTBM®" wrote in message
.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge


So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?



SteveTBM
--

In case they were needed for future railway development? In fact the
easternmost piers are going to be used for the Blackfriars station widening
work duringThameslink 20??

Another possibility is that if they were in good nick, they may have been
left to provide part of the upstream 'cu****er' for the current bridge's
piers. A civil engineer might be able to confirm that, I shoud think one
will be along anytime...

Paul

SteveTBM® wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge


So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?

Because if they'd got rid of them, someone would have asked why they got rid
of them.

In message , SteveTBM®
writes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge


So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?

I wonder if it was because the bridge was so close to the adjacent St
Paul's bridge that removing the piers might have destabilised the
foundations of the latter.

--
Paul Terry

SteveTBM® wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge


So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?




The bridge was of cast-iron construction and would have had scrap
value. The masonry supports had no value and, presumably, there was no
funding at the time to remove them for aesthetic reasons. However, I
like ruins like this and hope they will stay as they are.

"umpston" wrote in message
oups.com...
SteveTBM® wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge


So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?




The bridge was of cast-iron construction and would have had scrap
value. The masonry supports had no value and, presumably, there was no
funding at the time to remove them for aesthetic reasons. However, I
like ruins like this and hope they will stay as they are.

See my other post, the easternmost piers are to be used by the new
Blackfriars station, so must be in reasonable condition - IIRC the tops are
properly capped off to waterproof them as well.

Paul

Paul Scott wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
oups.com...
SteveTBM® wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge


So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?




The bridge was of cast-iron construction and would have had scrap
value. The masonry supports had no value and, presumably, there was no
funding at the time to remove them for aesthetic reasons. However, I
like ruins like this and hope they will stay as they are.

See my other post, the easternmost piers are to be used by the new
Blackfriars station, so must be in reasonable condition - IIRC the tops are
properly capped off to waterproof them as well.

Paul

I'm probably getting mixed up with something else, I think there were
plans to have sculptures on the top of each support - sounds awful! I
heard that in a pub somewhere...

B.

ONscotland wrote in message
:

Paul Scott wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
oups.com...
SteveTBM® wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge


So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?




The bridge was of cast-iron construction and would have had scrap
value. The masonry supports had no value and, presumably, there was
no funding at the time to remove them for aesthetic reasons.
However, I
like ruins like this and hope they will stay as they are.

See my other post, the easternmost piers are to be used by the new
Blackfriars station, so must be in reasonable condition - IIRC the
tops are properly capped off to waterproof them as well.

Paul

I'm probably getting mixed up with something else, I think there were
plans to have sculptures on the top of each support - sounds awful! I
heard that in a pub somewhere...

LOL. But keep quiet about that one: you'll give people ideas :-(

Before the old part of the bridge was demoloished, was the station wider (ie
did it extend west towards the road bridge) or did the extra tracks merge
into the existing ones just south of the roofed section? Likewise on the
south bank, did the tracks merge into the existing ones before the start of
the long north-south building, or was that built after the bridge was
demolished?

"Martin Underwood" a@b wrote in message
...

So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?

The bridge was of cast-iron construction and would have had scrap
value. The masonry supports had no value and, presumably, there was
no funding at the time to remove them for aesthetic reasons.
However, I
like ruins like this and hope they will stay as they are.

See my other post, the easternmost piers are to be used by the new
Blackfriars station, so must be in reasonable condition - IIRC the
tops are properly capped off to waterproof them as well.

Paul

Before the old part of the bridge was demoloished, was the station wider
(ie did it extend west towards the road bridge) or did the extra tracks
merge into the existing ones just south of the roofed section? Likewise on
the south bank, did the tracks merge into the existing ones before the
start of the long north-south building, or was that built after the bridge
was demolished?
The new bridge was built 20 years after the older bridge (1862) , to provide
space for additional tracks, the older bridge went out of use when heavier
trains became the norm in the 1950s, but the deck wasn't removed until 1984.

Paul

Paul Scott wrote in message
:

"Martin Underwood" a@b wrote in message
...

So why have the supports of the old bridge been left behind?

The bridge was of cast-iron construction and would have had scrap
value. The masonry supports had no value and, presumably, there
was no funding at the time to remove them for aesthetic reasons.
However, I
like ruins like this and hope they will stay as they are.

See my other post, the easternmost piers are to be used by the new
Blackfriars station, so must be in reasonable condition - IIRC the
tops are properly capped off to waterproof them as well.

Paul

Before the old part of the bridge was demoloished, was the station
wider (ie did it extend west towards the road bridge) or did the
extra tracks merge into the existing ones just south of the roofed
section? Likewise on the south bank, did the tracks merge into the
existing ones before the start of the long north-south building, or
was that built after the bridge was demolished?

The new bridge was built 20 years after the older bridge (1862), to
provide space for additional tracks, the older bridge went out of use
when heavier trains became the norm in the 1950s, but the deck wasn't
removed until 1984.

So did the old bridge have a straight-line access to the trackbed coming
from the south and the station to the north, or was there a sharp kink in
the track at each end as *appears* to be necessary if it was connected
nowadays? I presume there was not a kink: the original bridge would have
been built inline with the track and the platforms and maybe the new bridge
would have had the deviated kinked route, though track has probably been
slewed since the new bridge became the only one.

Was the bridge deck demolished (rather than simply being left unused)
because it had become unsafe or for its scrap value?