Latest on Orwell Bridge

[alandalus11]

Orwell Bridge demolition work begins | Suffolk Gazette

Did anyone know about this???

 

[snowbird30ds]

Orwell Bridge demolition work begins | Suffolk Gazette

Did anyone know about this???

I assume you noted the suffolk gazettes tagline "you couldn't make it up".

 

[alandalus11]

 

[turnstone]

Good old Suffolk Gazette all the best local stories

 

[johnalison]

Great stuff, if just over three months early.

 

[Bodach na mara]

Thanks for drawing this publication to my attention. One criticism though. Like many members of the wider forum community, I might have missed this and feel that it should be posted in a more prominent area, such as the joke thread in the lounge. I would post a link there myself except that I don't have any resident children to show me how.

 

[PeterWright]

If only the story were true and the bridge were to be replaced with a tunnel, preferably 3 lanes each way, which could stay open when the wind gets up!

Even the current bridge caused Spirit yachts to make careful calculations to get their 111 ft LOA Geist bdown the river, timing was criticai as she needed the tide to be low enough for the mast to clear the bridge and high enough for the keel to clear the mud. The plan, since cancelled, to build a new bridge near the wet dock lock had significantly less clearance than the current bridge.

Things are different in the Netherlands where, when sailing the canals with charts a few years old you find bridges are missing then looking to each side, you see cars and lorries disappearing then reappearing as they enter and leave a newly built tunnel. Perhaps we could learn from them.

On the bright side, the Dartford Crossing has been a bone of contention all my life. Originally it was not a trunk route, a decision to avoid funding by the Ministry of Transport, as it then was, so the cost was met by the counties of Kent and Essex. It's capacity was doubled by building the second tunnel, giving 2 lanes each way, then doubled again by building the bridge, which brought an end to tall ships visiting London - apparently the UK was too poor to afford another tunnel, despite having just partnered with our French neighbours to put one under the channel. The good news is the Lower Thames crossing, a peroject to relieve the load on the Dartford crossing which is well advanced with its plans and will comprise two multi lane tunnels somewhere around Thurrock and the necessary infrastructure to link into the road systems north and south of the river.

With that example to follow, perhaps the next proposal for a new Orwell crossing will be a tunnel. I can only live in hope!

Peter.

 

[DanTribe]

If only the story were true and the bridge were to be replaced with a tunnel, preferably 3 lanes each way, which could stay open when the wind gets up!

Even the current bridge caused Spirit yachts to make careful calculations to get their 111 ft LOA Geist bdown the river, timing was criticai as she needed the tide to be low enough for the mast to clear the bridge and high enough for the keel to clear the mud. The plan, since cancelled, to build a new bridge near the wet dock lock had significantly less clearance than the current bridge.

Things are different in the Netherlands where, when sailing the canals with charts a few years old you find bridges are missing then looking to each side, you see cars and lorries disappearing then reappearing as they enter and leave a newly built tunnel. Perhaps we could learn from them.

On the bright side, the Dartford Crossing has been a bone of contention all my life. Originally it was not a trunk route, a decision to avoid funding by the Ministry of Transport, as it then was, so the cost was met by the counties of Kent and Essex. It's capacity was doubled by building the second tunnel, giving 2 lanes each way, then doubled again by building the bridge, which brought an end to tall ships visiting London - apparently the UK was too poor to afford another tunnel, despite having just partnered with our French neighbours to put one under the channel. The good news is the Lower Thames crossing, a peroject to relieve the load on the Dartford crossing which is well advanced with its plans and will comprise two multi lane tunnels somewhere around Thurrock and the necessary infrastructure to link into the road systems north and south of the river.

With that example to follow, perhaps the next proposal for a new Orwell crossing will be a tunnel. I can only live in hope!

Peter.

I started driving just after the 1st Dartford tunnel was opened.
Dad said " great, now we don't have to queue for the Dartford Gravesend ferry"
When the 2nd bore opened in 1980 we thought, great, all our troubles are over.
The QE bridge openened in 1991. Great, all our troubles are over.
Now a new crossing is planned. How long until that is overwelmed?

 

[Snowgoose-1]

If only the story were true and the bridge were to be replaced with a tunnel, preferably 3 lanes each way, which could stay open when the wind gets up!

Even the current bridge caused Spirit yachts to make careful calculations to get their 111 ft LOA Geist bdown the river, timing was criticai as she needed the tide to be low enough for the mast to clear the bridge and high enough for the keel to clear the mud. The plan, since cancelled, to build a new bridge near the wet dock lock had significantly less clearance than the current bridge.

Things are different in the Netherlands where, when sailing the canals with charts a few years old you find bridges are missing then looking to each side, you see cars and lorries disappearing then reappearing as they enter and leave a newly built tunnel. Perhaps we could learn from them.

On the bright side, the Dartford Crossing has been a bone of contention all my life. Originally it was not a trunk route, a decision to avoid funding by the Ministry of Transport, as it then was, so the cost was met by the counties of Kent and Essex. It's capacity was doubled by building the second tunnel, giving 2 lanes each way, then doubled again by building the bridge, which brought an end to tall ships visiting London - apparently the UK was too poor to afford another tunnel, despite having just partnered with our French neighbours to put one under the channel. The good news is the Lower Thames crossing, a peroject to relieve the load on the Dartford crossing which is well advanced with its plans and will comprise two multi lane tunnels somewhere around Thurrock and the necessary infrastructure to link into the road systems north and south of the river.

With that example to follow, perhaps the next proposal for a new Orwell crossing will be a tunnel. I can only live in hope!

Peter.

I like bridges. The sun and shadows on them are different every time.
This could send you to sleep .

Being largely chalk and mud have often wondered why a bridge and not a tunnel.

 

[PeterWright]

I started driving just after the 1st Dartford tunnel was opened.
Dad said " great, now we don't have to queue for the Dartford Gravesend ferry"
When the 2nd bore opened in 1980 we thought, great, all our troubles are over.
The QE bridge openened in 1991. Great, all our troubles are over.
Now a new crossing is planned. How long until that is overwelmed?

Hi Dan,

Until we manage to stabilise the world's population of human beings - that is the issue at the root of most of the world's problems.

Peter.

 

[johnalison]

The Germans kindly demolished a bridge for us on the only occasion we visited Lubeck and then built another after we left.

 

[Boathook]

Now a new crossing is planned. How long until that is overwelmed?

Possibly 2 years after completion if the traffic follows existing 'improvements'. Then the next bottle neck will become apparent .....

 

[RivalRedwing]

Possibly 2 years after completion if the traffic follows existing 'improvements'. Then the next bottle neck will become apparent .....

indeed, I've been watching for indications of the improvements at the Kent end of the new tunnels with some interest. At present I have reached the conclusion that they don't want to reveal the full plans for the 'improvements' until the tunnels are finished and then it will be "now that we have the tunnels...." and a large tract of otherwise green and pleasant countryside will be dispatched to provide a direct link to the M25 & M26, a link to just the M2 really does not seem sufficient.

 

[14K478]

Wonderful pictures.

I like bridges. The sun and shadows on them are different every time.
This could send you to sleep .

Being largely chalk and mud have often wondered why a bridge and not a tunnel.

That was lovely. But I didn't spot my boat!

 

[Daydream believer]

Hi Dan,

Until we manage to stabilise the world's population of human beings - that is the issue at the root of most of the world's problems.

Peter.

That is not entirely true. One might stabilise the total world population, but if it moves to differing locations then might not each location in turn become a bottleneck, or a population density issue? Such as we are currently seeing in the west.
That is not a political comment -is it?

 

[Greemble]

That is not entirely true. One might stabilise the total world population, but if it moves to differing locations then might not each location in turn become a bottleneck, or a population density issue? Such as we are currently seeing in the west.
That is not a political comment -is it?

Depends on what you suggest that should be done about the areas of 'bottlenecks'.

Perhaps move much of the population of London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc, away from the city centre and spread them out evenly throughout the countryside of East Anglia, Northumberland and the Yorkshire Dales?

 

[14K478]

Depends on what you suggest that should be done about the areas of 'bottlenecks'.

Perhaps move much of the population of London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc, away from the city centre and spread them out evenly throughout the countryside of East Anglia, Northumberland and the Yorkshire Dales?

Bad idea; they will have dogs and cats.

 

[Daydream believer]

Depends on what you suggest that should be done about the areas of 'bottlenecks'.

Perhaps move much of the population of London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc, away from the city centre and spread them out evenly throughout the countryside of East Anglia, Northumberland and the Yorkshire Dales?

I am not suggesting any solution, I am doing a "Nigel Farage" & only pointing out a situation that arises. I cannot offer an answer. Trade generally requires groups of the population to gather together & as world trade increases then the density & quantity of the groups increases. Usually around areas of land that is optimum for travel & trade, ie water side ports etc.. Spreading those groups thinly over greater areas just hinders trade & makes social interaction harder for the masses.
There is a point where low population density restricts activity (take the Scottish highlands) & the populus then tends to move & congregate into closer social masses for all sorts of reasons. Beit trade, social, or just protection etc. But then there comes a point where that density can become too dense, due to many factors. That can be political control, poverty, or even wealth; as examples.

 

[Slowboat35]

Perhaps move much of the population of London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc, away from the city centre and spread them out evenly throughout the countryside of East Anglia, Northumberland and the Yorkshire Dales?

The buggers are already here en masse in E Anglia. Local accent is rarely heard now, it's all citified ee-bah-gums, adenoidal brummies and ugly glottal-stop estuary incomers treating the place like a Basildon council estate.

 

[14K478]

The buggers were already here en masse in E Anglia. Local accent is rarely heard now, it's all citified ee-bah-gums, adenoidal brummies and ugly glottal-stop estuary incomers treating the place like Basildon.

The late Michael Frost, owner and rebuilder of the 1808 smack “Boadicea”, remarked that the spelling of her home port on her transom - “Couchester” - accorded with the local accent. You never hear that now. I can remember hearing the Colchester accent from old people as a boy but it’s gone.