Why are American cities full of open girdered viaducts whereas British
cities are full of brick viaducts?

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:15:55 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

Why are American cities full of open girdered viaducts whereas British
cities are full of brick viaducts?


Because bricks were easily available, and long girders were not?

US viaducts also post-date the introduction of steel. At the time
most British lines were built, metal girders would have been made of
wrought and cast iron and could not span nearly as far as the later
steel girders could. So brick was the right choice.

Brick viaducts also allowed the arches to be let to produce rental
income. Many of the businesses that were displaced by railway viaduct
construction were relocated to the railway arches.

On Jun 26, 8:15*am, Basil Jet wrote:
Why are American cities full of open girdered viaducts whereas British
cities are full of brick viaducts?

Availability of materials.

"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Basil Jet wrote:
Why are American cities full of open girdered viaducts whereas British
cities are full of brick viaducts?

Availability of materials.

================

Might it also be something to do with the very nature of the viaducts? If
you think about the "elevateds" in the US many of them were built over roads
and I'm not sure how practical it would have been to use brick for that.

On 27/06/2010 12:15, Graham Harrison wrote:

"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Basil Jet wrote:
Why are American cities full of open girdered viaducts whereas British
cities are full of brick viaducts?

Availability of materials.

================

Might it also be something to do with the very nature of the viaducts?
If you think about the "elevateds" in the US many of them were built
over roads and I'm not sure how practical it would have been to use
brick for that.

I think you've put the cart before the horse. It's not that London
viaducts utilise brick because they are not over roads - they don't have
roads beneath them because they utilise brick.

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/2010 12:15, Graham Harrison wrote:

"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Basil Jet wrote:
Why are American cities full of open girdered viaducts whereas British
cities are full of brick viaducts?

Availability of materials.

================

Might it also be something to do with the very nature of the viaducts?
If you think about the "elevateds" in the US many of them were built
over roads and I'm not sure how practical it would have been to use
brick for that.

I think you've put the cart before the horse. It's not that London
viaducts utilise brick because they are not over roads - they don't have
roads beneath them because they utilise brick.

Take your point but I'm still not sure that the "Els" would have been built
in brick.

On 26/06/2010 17:29, Bruce wrote:

US viaducts also post-date the introduction of steel. At the time
most British lines were built, metal girders would have been made of
wrought and cast iron and could not span nearly as far as the later
steel girders could.

Thanks.

On 6/27/2010 08:16, Graham Harrison wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/2010 12:15, Graham Harrison wrote:

"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Basil Jet wrote:
Why are American cities full of open girdered viaducts whereas British
cities are full of brick viaducts?

Availability of materials.

================

Might it also be something to do with the very nature of the viaducts?
If you think about the "elevateds" in the US many of them were built
over roads and I'm not sure how practical it would have been to use
brick for that.

I think you've put the cart before the horse. It's not that London
viaducts utilise brick because they are not over roads - they don't have
roads beneath them because they utilise brick.

Take your point but I'm still not sure that the "Els" would have been built
in brick.

And I think that has the seeds for the answer.

"Viaducts" are often designed by engineers, who used to consider cost,
availability of materials, nature of problem, tectonics, geology, and
more that don't come to mind.

Lots of places have what amount to viaducts made of huge, long piles of
dirt (railroads, highways), naked steel (railroads, els [to minimize
airspace used]), reinforced concrete, concrete encased steel, bricks,
stone. At Center near Industrial it looks like they are widening the
railbed using steel-reinforced dirt.


--
Somebody should have said:
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting
the vote.

Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

On 27 June, 14:06, Basil Jet wrote:
On 27/06/2010 12:15, Graham Harrison wrote:



"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Basil Jet wrote:
Why are American cities full of open girdered viaducts whereas British
cities are full of brick viaducts?

Availability of materials.

================

Might it also be something to do with the very nature of the viaducts?
If you think about the "elevateds" in the US many of them were built
over roads and I'm not sure how practical it would have been to use
brick for that.

I think you've put the cart before the horse. It's not that London
viaducts utilise brick because they are not over roads - they don't have
roads beneath them because they utilise brick.

Plenty of narrow roads through the arches though, or where would they
film all the car chases in The Bill?

On 27/06/2010 20:09, MIG wrote:

Plenty of narrow roads through the arches though, or where would they
film all the car chases in The Bill?

Selsey?