A new ferry across the Thames?

It does seem stupid that because it is an ancient monument it must be restored. That would be fine if we had the ability to completely dismantle it, take each part for repair or a replacement part to be made and put it all back together in a sensible time. But we don't.

So I agree a new bridge to a modern design is the best sollution and donate the old bridge to a museum or some preservation society to be rebuilt in an alternative location where it can continue to be a shrine to old engineering.
 
That would be fine if we had the ability to completely dismantle it, take each part for repair or a replacement part to be made and put it all back together in a sensible time.
That is exactly what the temporary support part of the double-deck truss bridge is designed to do.
 
That is exactly what the temporary support part of the double-deck truss bridge is designed to do.
but not in a sensible time or cost. This country is a horrendously irresponsible spender. Another 100 million here and another there like its nothing. If we scrap or move the old bridge if its really worth it and put an efficient new one to save 100 million and much more over time then we should do it. We spend like there is still a steady supply of gold coming in from an empire.
 
but not in a sensible time or cost. This country is a horrendously irresponsible spender. Another 100 million here and another there like its nothing. If we scrap or move the old bridge if its really worth it and put an efficient new one to save 100 million and much more over time then we should do it. We spend like there is still a steady supply of gold coming in from an empire.


Regarding that last point:

Following Columbus’s discovery of the Americas in 1492, sixteenth century Spain turned itself into a superpower controlling around 70% of the world’s gold output, including from its new South America colonies. Little of this was used to develop the domestic economy, with the gold ending up being funneled through Spain onwards to countries like England and the Netherlands which produced goods for the Spanish market. Lacking efficient domestic production capacity, Spanish prices began to rise, damaged productivity further and rendered its exports uncompetitive. The situation was compounded by endless conflicts between countries competing to control trade.

By the mid-1600s, Spain was in serious decline and by the late-1600s, creditors stopped lending to Spain on the basis that collateral in the form of annual gold shipments was judged too risky.

In this way, England was the main beneficiary of the Spanish gold. Even better, precious metal 'liberated' and enfranchised by Sir Francis Drake paid off the national debt and some argue that the Industrial Revolution might not have taken hold in England in the absence of this gold windfall.

All history now as Gordon Brown sold the nation's gold between 1999 and 2002 and his timing couldn't have been worse.

Apols for Fred Drift!
 
but not in a sensible time or cost. This country is a horrendously irresponsible spender. Another 100 million here and another there like its nothing. If we scrap or move the old bridge if its really worth it and put an efficient new one to save 100 million and much more over time then we should do it. We spend like there is still a steady supply of gold coming in from an empire.
According to H&F Council, the cost of a new bridge is roughly the same as the cost of restoring the current one, which isn't really surprising, because it's basically the same job: dismantle and remove old bridge, bring in and assemble new/refurbished one. Whether £140m is reasonable for that is a different matter, but I can't see in being in the interests of H&FC, TfL or the PLA to widdle money away needlessly. The new Renfrew Bridge which is (a) much shorter but (b) opening is due to cost £80m or so, so £140m doesn't seem ridiculous.

All that said, they seem to be me to be missing the simplest solution. Simply induce Joanna Lumley to support any solution and rich but gullible individuals, trusts and prime ministers ("Phwoar. Posh totty. I'll be late back tonight, Carrie. Crikey.") will fall over themselves to throw money at it.
 
All history now as Gordon Brown sold the nation's gold between 1999 and 2002 and his timing couldn't have been worse.
The Bank of England still has 300 tonnes of the stuff, for some reason. It's worth £200m at current rates, which is a whacking 48 minutes' worth of GDP or 0.074% of the cost of dealing with COVID. Perhaps having twice as much would make a difference.
 
Surely a metal bridge can be dismantled ?
Taken away , a new ( design competition winner) bridge put in place after a period of a temporary “ keep the buses moving “ substitution is set up .. and then , in the fullness of time , and restored beautifully in part by apprentices and rejuvenated skills , the Olde Glory reset alongside Ze New, and turned into a garden grade , pedestrian bridge , opened by Ms J Lumley.
Something for everyone ???
 
The Bank of England still has 300 tonnes of the stuff, for some reason. It's worth £200m at current rates, which is a whacking 48 minutes' worth of GDP or 0.074% of the cost of dealing with COVID. Perhaps having twice as much would make a difference.


Your calcs may be a little off !!
 
According to H&F Council, the cost of a new bridge is roughly the same as the cost of restoring the current one, which isn't really surprising, because it's basically the same job: dismantle and remove old bridge, bring in and assemble new/refurbished one. Whether £140m is reasonable for that is a different matter, but I can't see in being in the interests of H&FC, TfL or the PLA to widdle money away needlessly. The new Renfrew Bridge which is (a) much shorter but (b) opening is due to cost £80m or so, so £140m doesn't seem ridiculous.
I thought I saw somewhere saying a new one would be 40M and repairing the old was 140M but might have imagined it. Anyway if a new one which is designed to last costs the same as this one which they are already talking about saving up for future maintenance then a new one seems the obvious way to go.

Have you seen H&F new parking rules regarding cars that use more than a gram of carbon per mile or something very low anyway? "to save the planet". To park my car on the street there for 8 hours would cost £45. This rule came in after the bridge quotes so I'm guessing there's a connection.
 
I thought I saw somewhere saying a new one would be 40M and repairing the old was 140M but might have imagined it. Anyway if a new one which is designed to last costs the same as this one which they are already talking about saving up for future maintenance then a new one seems the obvious way to go.
From what I have read the old one would have lasted fine (it hasn't done badly) if they had bothered to maintain it over the years. I can't find much by way of detail, but it seems that the chains run over saddles to anchor points, and are supposed to be free to move in order to allow for thermal expansion and contraction. However they were allowed to rust solidly onto the saddles, so instead of sliding slightly to and fro they have been pulling the tops of the saddles with them, causing huge stresses well beyond what they were designed for and 'orrible big cracks.

So ... dismantle it, clean it up, replace the saddles, MAINTAIN IT PROPERLY and it should last for ages. It does seem rather unfair that the whole cost of this, or of whatever they do, should fall on H&F Council.
 
Top