On 15/09/2020 21:07, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/09/2020 01:35, Marland wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:03:35 on Mon, 14
Sep 2020, Marland remarked:

Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge
one can
only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into
dangerous
structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river
traffic
beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off.

All River traffic has been prohibited.

http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge


Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenientÂ* exist the
alternatives for river users are far less.

Fewer, perhaps. Just the Regents Canal route I suspect.

And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the
Canal
Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I
know the
Boat Safety Certificate is now common between
CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit.

You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if you
had
a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboatÂ* conversion and the
navigational skillsÂ* accompanied by a suitable stomachÂ* it may be
possible
to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then around the
Coast but
the type of person who would want to undertake such an adventure would
probably be doing it regardless of the bridge closure.
Â* The specialisedÂ* sea going barge typeÂ* one of which featuredÂ*Â* the
Actor
Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit the Grand Union but is
just a
little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon .

How difficult/expensive is "put it on a lorry"? A friend who recently
bought a narrow boat apparently had it delivered by road to a yard
somewhere in west London then sailed it into central London.



Expensive, though it may be cheaper than moorings in Chelsea.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 15/09/2020 16:42, Recliner wrote:

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original London
Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys of
over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side.

Restaurants, surely. If the carriageway was electric vehicles only or
enclosed, you could have very pleasant terraces on the restaurant roofs
right across the river. The bridge is right in the middle of a curve so
it is perhaps the only London bridge which could be fairly opaque
without spoiling too many people's view.


Yes, restaurants would be good, and it would be sensible to restrict it to
electric-only vehicles and build a terrace over the carriageways.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

The only interesting bits are the truly extravagent cast iron mouldings at either end
where the cables end. Of which fibreglass replicas could probably be cast
from multiple moulds.

The pillars in the middle are nothing special and the deck of the bridge
doesn't form a pleasing single curve, but comprises four slightly curved
straight sections.

As it happens locals would probably welcome a more open view rather
than having their view obscured by the thick cables and pepper pot pillars,

IHMO while there are some truly outstanding bits, as a whole it doesn't
really add up to much.


michael adams


.....

michael adams wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

The only interesting bits are the truly extravagent cast iron mouldings at either end
where the cables end. Of which fibreglass replicas could probably be cast
from multiple moulds.

The pillars in the middle are nothing special and the deck of the bridge
doesn't form a pleasing single curve, but comprises four slightly curved
straight sections.

As it happens locals would probably welcome a more open view rather
than having their view obscured by the thick cables and pepper pot pillars,

IHMO while there are some truly outstanding bits, as a whole it doesn't
really add up to much.


There's bound to be some noisy heritage lobby that would be up in arms at
any suggestion that the bridge be removed and replaced with an anonymous,
low key modern bridge.

Meanwhile, a solution is at hand: there is now a DfT task force in place!

https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/hammersmith-bridge-task-force/

They're talking about £141m for repairs! I'm sure a decent, modern
replacement bridge with a long life would cost a fraction of that.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

The only interesting bits are the truly extravagent cast iron mouldings at either end
where the cables end. Of which fibreglass replicas could probably be cast
from multiple moulds.

The pillars in the middle are nothing special and the deck of the bridge
doesn't form a pleasing single curve, but comprises four slightly curved
straight sections.

As it happens locals would probably welcome a more open view rather
than having their view obscured by the thick cables and pepper pot pillars,

IHMO while there are some truly outstanding bits, as a whole it doesn't
really add up to much.


There's bound to be some noisy heritage lobby that would be up in arms at
any suggestion that the bridge be removed and replaced with an anonymous,
low key modern bridge.

Meanwhile, a solution is at hand: there is now a DfT task force in place!

https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/hammersmith-bridge-task-force/

They're talking about £141m for repairs! I'm sure a decent, modern
replacement bridge with a long life would cost a fraction of that.

The problem is apparently cracks in the castings which were already known
about and sensors fitted and the fact these opened up due to the warm weather.
Whether there is any real possibility of bits dropping off or the bridge
collapsing totally thus meriting total closure both above and below
rather than this being an arse covering exercise, is open to question
IMO. "Repairs" would presumably mean somehow removing the cast iron shell
and cables, installing modern internals, replacing the deck and putting the
cast iron back in place. Pre Covid, I used to walk past it once or twice
a week.

The problem is, the existing bridge, as might be expected links up with all
the roads and there is very little scope on either bank for alternative approaches
to either a temporary bridge, of which there have been a number of proposals or
a new bridge, while the old bridge remains in place.

One cheaper solution might be to remove the deck and cables and install a modern
deck,on legs to run inside but independent of, the existing towers and suspension
system. And painted to match in that execrable shade of puce green as indicated
on the original plans.


michael adams

....

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.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:09:50 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 15/09/2020 08:51, D A Stocks wrote:

Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical
replacement when you can put something useful there instead?

Because when that seemed a good idea in the post-war period, it led to a
whole load of structures which are liked only by architecture nerds who
don't have to look at them everyday?

There are plenty of modern bridges that have merit. You have to
remember that post-war Britain was a very different place to Britain
today.

In message , at
21:07:12 on Tue, 15 Sep 2020, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the Canal
Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I know the
Boat Safety Certificate is now common between
CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit.

You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if
you had a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboat conversion and
the navigational skills accompanied by a suitable stomach it may be
possible to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then
around the Coast but the type of person who would want to undertake
such an adventure would probably be doing it regardless of the bridge
closure. The specialised sea going barge type one of which
featured the Actor Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit
the Grand Union but is just a little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon .

How difficult/expensive is "put it on a lorry"? A friend who recently
bought a narrow boat apparently had it delivered by road to a yard
somewhere in west London then sailed it into central London.

If it's too big to fit through the Regents Canal (73ft 4" x 13ft 10"),
it's probably too big to go on the back of a lorry.
--
Roland Perry

On 15/09/2020 22:15, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
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?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

The only interesting bits are the truly extravagent cast iron mouldings at either end
where the cables end. Of which fibreglass replicas could probably be cast
from multiple moulds.

The pillars in the middle are nothing special and the deck of the bridge
doesn't form a pleasing single curve, but comprises four slightly curved
straight sections.

As it happens locals would probably welcome a more open view rather
than having their view obscured by the thick cables and pepper pot pillars,

IHMO while there are some truly outstanding bits, as a whole it doesn't
really add up to much.


There's bound to be some noisy heritage lobby that would be up in arms at
any suggestion that the bridge be removed and replaced with an anonymous,
low key modern bridge.

Meanwhile, a solution is at hand: there is now a DfT task force in place!

https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/hammersmith-bridge-task-force/

They're talking about £141m for repairs! I'm sure a decent, modern
replacement bridge with a long life would cost a fraction of that.


You are joking, two planks of wood and some potted palms have already
cost more than that and the bridge was never built.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:42:02 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was deliberately built

to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge. And that's the one everyone
admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable. But
we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But that's
not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it. The real
issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued aesthetics
a
lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith bridge would almost
certainly be your standard concrete arch job with all the aesthetic appeal of

a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard, low
key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original London
Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys of
over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The top floor
could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing wide and strong,
and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

Nice idea, but given the garden bridge flop I doubt we'll see any kind of
unusual or beyond basic functional bridge anytime soon in london. I doubt
even the millenium bridge would get built in todays political climate even
ignoring covid and brexit.