On May 28, 10:30 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Peter Masson wrote:
"Richard J." wrote

It sounds as if one of the pillars supporting that end of the
bridge may have partially collapsed. I can now understand why the
security guys insisted that I wore a hard hat to take the photo at
http://rjnews.fotopic.net/p50210450.html!

I don't think a hard hat would have been much use if that lot had
landed on your head.

:-)

Also on BBC News tonight: "The leaning tower of Pisa has stopped moving for
the first time in its 800-year history." Perhaps the bridge is trying to
make a name for itself as the leaning bridge of Shoreditch.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Does the bridge sit on existing pillars or are they new?

Neill

"Neill" wrote in message
...
On May 28, 10:30 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Peter Masson wrote:
"Richard J." wrote

It sounds as if one of the pillars supporting that end of the
bridge may have partially collapsed. I can now understand why the
security guys insisted that I wore a hard hat to take the photo at
http://rjnews.fotopic.net/p50210450.html!


Does the bridge sit on existing pillars or are they new?

Four new reinforced concrete pillars, two each side of the cutting as shown
in Richard's picture linked above. Although it seems fairly close above the
cutting walls when you go through on a train, the walls have all been capped
off, and the new bridge is somewhat above the new top level. All the
intermediate pillars between the GEML tracks were removed durng the
Christmas/New Year blockade.

Paul

On 28 May, 22:36, Neill wrote:
On May 28, 10:30 pm, "Richard J." wrote:





Peter Masson wrote:
"Richard J." wrote

It sounds as if one of the pillars supporting that end of the
bridge may have partially collapsed. *I can now understand why the
security guys insisted that I wore a hard hat to take the photo at
http://rjnews.fotopic.net/p50210450.html!

I don't think a hard hat would have been much use if that lot had
landed on your head.

:-)

Also on BBC News tonight: *"The leaning tower of Pisa has stopped moving for
the first time in its 800-year history." *Perhaps the bridge is trying to
make a name for itself as the leaning bridge of Shoreditch.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Does the bridge sit on existing pillars or are they new?

Neill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This sounds like very bad news for the ELL - two other bridges were
craned in in the last few weeks. could it also have ramifications for
other bridge builds, and for longer term railway projects, as craning
in bridges is used to reduce disruption costs?

IanB wrote:
On 28 May, 22:36, Neill wrote:
"Richard J." wrote

It sounds as if one of the pillars supporting that end of the
bridge may have partially collapsed. I can now understand why the
security guys insisted that I wore a hard hat to take the photo at
http://rjnews.fotopic.net/p50210450.html!

[snip]

This sounds like very bad news for the ELL - two other bridges were
craned in in the last few weeks. could it also have ramifications for
other bridge builds, and for longer term railway projects, as craning
in bridges is used to reduce disruption costs?

This bridge was NOT craned in. It was assembled east of the site and rolled
into position on 4/5 May, with the rear (eastern) end sitting on a
many-wheeled truck, propelled forward by two strand jacks, and the front end
sliding on a structure on the edge of the GE cutting.

If the problem arose from the way in which the front of the bridge landed on
its supports next to Brick Lane, it could have implications for the New
Cross bridge which was installed using a similar method a week or two later.

And it all seemed to go so well ...

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Reading various reports seems to suggest to me its concrete decking or
supports thats failed rather than the steel structure. That might mean
no effect on the bridge or simple jacking respectively. However, that
a collection of eye witness non-expert reports.

Its nearly 6 hours afdter the event as a write this. Methinks
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...ons/today.html

by now ought to be saying something succinct than ''Train services
are being disrupted due to an operating incident in the London
Liverpool Street area. Services are currently unable to operate
between London Liverpool Street and Seven Sisters / Tottenham Hale /
Stratford. However, Chingford line services are running between
Chingford and Hackney Downs.''

Surely ''All services to/from Liverpool Street suspended'' as the
first sentence.

--
Nick

On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:55:11 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

Reading various reports seems to suggest to me its concrete decking or
supports thats failed rather than the steel structure. That might mean
no effect on the bridge or simple jacking respectively. However, that
a collection of eye witness non-expert reports.

Its nearly 6 hours afdter the event as a write this. Methinks
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...ons/today.html

by now ought to be saying something succinct than ''Train services
are being disrupted due to an operating incident in the London
Liverpool Street area. Services are currently unable to operate
between London Liverpool Street and Seven Sisters / Tottenham Hale /
Stratford. However, Chingford line services are running between
Chingford and Hackney Downs.''

Surely ''All services to/from Liverpool Street suspended'' as the
first sentence.

According to the Torygraph, everything's going to be up Faeces Creek
for a few days :-
http://tinyurl.com/5eqe36

"a spokesman for NEEA .... He added: “We are totally in the hands of
the TfL engineers: it’s their bridge."

In message
, at
16:55:11 on Wed, 28 May 2008, D7666 remarked:
Its nearly 6 hours afdter the event as a write this. Methinks
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...ons/today.html

by now ought to be saying something succinct than ''Train services
are being disrupted due to an operating incident in the London
Liverpool Street area.

Now it's a "Problem near the railway" (my, what a wonderful way of
giving no details at all) that may be fixed by 14.00.

--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
16:55:11 on Wed, 28 May 2008, D7666 remarked:
Its nearly 6 hours afdter the event as a write this. Methinks
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...ons/today.html

by now ought to be saying something succinct than ''Train services
are being disrupted due to an operating incident in the London
Liverpool Street area.

Now it's a "Problem near the railway" (my, what a wonderful way of giving
no details at all) that may be fixed by 14.00.

--
Roland Perry
'Near' as in 'above'?
Brian

In message , at 08:16:00 on Thu,
29 May 2008, BH Williams remarked:
Now it's a "Problem near the railway" (my, what a wonderful way of giving
no details at all) that may be fixed by 14.00.

'Near' as in 'above'?

Exactly. I suppose "ten feet above" counts as "near"

As I posted in another thread, the BBC's headline "Trains halted over
bridge safety" could just as well have read "Trains halted under bridge
safely".
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
16:55:11 on Wed, 28 May 2008, D7666 remarked:
Its nearly 6 hours afdter the event as a write this. Methinks
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...ons/today.html

by now ought to be saying something succinct than ''Train services
are being disrupted due to an operating incident in the London
Liverpool Street area.

Now it's a "Problem near the railway" (my, what a wonderful way of
giving no details at all) that may be fixed by 14.00.

At least it's not specified as being "in the railway area".


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK