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.