Upper Orwell Crossings Ipswich
- Thread starter UOC
- Start date
PeterWright
Well-Known Member
This is the brainless approach of letting form override function. Once you spend the money to get the road deck up high, the extra cost of putting the footbridge up there with it would be next to nothing. I doubt the footbridge will be much used anyway, pedestrians should be allowed to walk across the lock gates with a traffic light system and so avoid the climb. The bridge could then be vehicle only.
Sailorman's observation that the Dutch wouldn't do this is so right - they'd put a tunnel under so both vehicles and shipping could flow unhindered. QE2 bridge put an end to the bigger tall ships visiting London, soon they'll be shut out of all our ports.
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
Really ? The QE2 is 136m high, which tall ships are unable to pass under that ?
MikeBz
Well-Known Member
136m is to the top of the towers. The bridge clearance is ~53m @ HAT: https://pla.co.uk/Safety/Thames-Bridges-Heights
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
Thanks Mike. What's the airdraft of those tall ships then ?
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Leighb
Well-Known Member
As those 2 ships are said to be the tallest at around 54m then they could get under QE2 bridge, as long as it was not at HAT?
UOC
New Member
The anticipation of a 15m air draft @ HW is speculation at this stage as we only have a computer generated model released to public to work with. I wouldn't call it fake news however, as it isn't intended to deceive anyone. I should have been a bit clearer in my original post but at the time I felt the CGI images were clear it was about the architect winning the tender competition rather than the planning application.
The original intended bridge was supposed to be much cheaper (approx £30m @ 2018 prices) and feature the ability to close road traffic to allow large yachts and ships through a swing bridge (official Option A or B) or bascule bridge. This one doesn't include a feature allowing it to open. Focus appears to be moving away from the marinas into developing land for the university and "Enterprise Island".
The 15m estimate is based on length of the bridge, the little area either side on the banks to connect up to existing road infrastructure and reasonable gradient that wouldn't cause too much of a problem for lorries. The bridge would need to flow. This is speculation including the secondary pedestrian deck being approx 5m lower than the likely 20m air draft of the main deck.
The angled position of the lock gates pose another problem when faced with this bridge directly in front of it. The CGI pictures suggests the bridge doesn't go directly across straight but curves between either side of the bridge. I think this will be a design quirk which won't feature in the final design. I don't want to speculate further, however, in the back of my mind I am worried about how close this bridge will be in respect to the lock gates... basic plan drawings suggest there might not be much distance between the bridge and the lock gates which may be a problem for longer yachts.
The original Wet Dock Crossing allowed reasonable function for water traffic at a more reasonable price. This was marketed to us all in the local press and in official SCC documents. Ben Gummer has ripped this up and allowed a landmark bridge which may hinder access to the marinas at Ipswich Waterfront which is nothing like anyone was ever told and doesn't meet the project specification. I therefore believe there will be compromises. Even if an air draft of 25m can be achieved - such as with scrapping the pedestrian deck - this bridge will mark the end of the tall ships and Maritime Festival. Anyone interested in original proposed crossings can view the SCC documents here... https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-an...ll-crossings/upper-orwell-crossings-proposal/
The original intended bridge was supposed to be much cheaper (approx £30m @ 2018 prices) and feature the ability to close road traffic to allow large yachts and ships through a swing bridge (official Option A or B) or bascule bridge. This one doesn't include a feature allowing it to open. Focus appears to be moving away from the marinas into developing land for the university and "Enterprise Island".
The 15m estimate is based on length of the bridge, the little area either side on the banks to connect up to existing road infrastructure and reasonable gradient that wouldn't cause too much of a problem for lorries. The bridge would need to flow. This is speculation including the secondary pedestrian deck being approx 5m lower than the likely 20m air draft of the main deck.
The angled position of the lock gates pose another problem when faced with this bridge directly in front of it. The CGI pictures suggests the bridge doesn't go directly across straight but curves between either side of the bridge. I think this will be a design quirk which won't feature in the final design. I don't want to speculate further, however, in the back of my mind I am worried about how close this bridge will be in respect to the lock gates... basic plan drawings suggest there might not be much distance between the bridge and the lock gates which may be a problem for longer yachts.
The original Wet Dock Crossing allowed reasonable function for water traffic at a more reasonable price. This was marketed to us all in the local press and in official SCC documents. Ben Gummer has ripped this up and allowed a landmark bridge which may hinder access to the marinas at Ipswich Waterfront which is nothing like anyone was ever told and doesn't meet the project specification. I therefore believe there will be compromises. Even if an air draft of 25m can be achieved - such as with scrapping the pedestrian deck - this bridge will mark the end of the tall ships and Maritime Festival. Anyone interested in original proposed crossings can view the SCC documents here... https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-an...ll-crossings/upper-orwell-crossings-proposal/
toyboy
Well-Known Member
As I said before "complete and utter bollocks." but you posted it as fact and no doubt you will now claim there has been public consultation. Please make it clear when you post speculation in future.
PeterWright
Well-Known Member
Thank you, UOC for clarifying your original post, at least we now have a better understanding of where your coming from.
However, your argument that the 15m airdraft arises out of the space available to connect into the existing road infrastructure, because the design achieves a 20m airdraft for the road deck. If the design insists on a separate pedestrian deck, that could be cantilevered off the road deck at the same height. The difference between 15 and 20m admits passage of a much higher proportion of yachts, but is still not enough for the bigger Spirit Yachts, built in the wet dock by McMillan yachts. Perhaps more importantly, it would prevent the passage of Thames Sailing Barges, which wee so important to the commercial development of Ipswich town. As recently as the 1960's, several Thames Barges were still trading under sail out of the wet dock - the last commercial sail traders in Europe.
Of course, in a scenario where the wet dock is abandoned and the land around it turned into housing, air draft of bridges becomes irrelevant, just put enough pipes in to let the Gipping run into the estuary, and concrete it all over. However, the Ipswich I grew up in believed it had a maritime heritage, which it became better at celebrating in 1980's and 90's, just as it's commercial maritime purpose was coming to an end. The Wet Dock already is a source of employment for many. Drive the yachts away and you will not onlymkill that employment, but you will diminish the value of the new properties, which is always boosted by a view of yachts.
But most importantly, if the Thames Sailing Barges are finally driven from the wet dock, we will loose a key part of the town's heritage. It's no mistake that the Ipswich buses carry the names of Sailing Barges that used to trade from the dock and the opportunity to sail on these grand old ladies today is provided by owners who charter out of the wet dock. I have no idea what determined the air draft of the Orwell bridge, but it could just be that it is to provide sufficient clearance for a Thames barge, which I would estimate needs between 30 and 36m to pass without housing the topmast - the Orwell bridge provides 38m above HAT.
The angle the bridge makes with the lock would not concern me too much. Provided the spacing of the ridge piers is considerably greater than the width of the lock (not difficult), and they don't put a pier in the centre of the lock approach, any vessel which fits into the lock will have no difficulty. There's no requirement to pass under a bridge at 90 degrees to the line of the bridge.
Peter
However, your argument that the 15m airdraft arises out of the space available to connect into the existing road infrastructure, because the design achieves a 20m airdraft for the road deck. If the design insists on a separate pedestrian deck, that could be cantilevered off the road deck at the same height. The difference between 15 and 20m admits passage of a much higher proportion of yachts, but is still not enough for the bigger Spirit Yachts, built in the wet dock by McMillan yachts. Perhaps more importantly, it would prevent the passage of Thames Sailing Barges, which wee so important to the commercial development of Ipswich town. As recently as the 1960's, several Thames Barges were still trading under sail out of the wet dock - the last commercial sail traders in Europe.
Of course, in a scenario where the wet dock is abandoned and the land around it turned into housing, air draft of bridges becomes irrelevant, just put enough pipes in to let the Gipping run into the estuary, and concrete it all over. However, the Ipswich I grew up in believed it had a maritime heritage, which it became better at celebrating in 1980's and 90's, just as it's commercial maritime purpose was coming to an end. The Wet Dock already is a source of employment for many. Drive the yachts away and you will not onlymkill that employment, but you will diminish the value of the new properties, which is always boosted by a view of yachts.
But most importantly, if the Thames Sailing Barges are finally driven from the wet dock, we will loose a key part of the town's heritage. It's no mistake that the Ipswich buses carry the names of Sailing Barges that used to trade from the dock and the opportunity to sail on these grand old ladies today is provided by owners who charter out of the wet dock. I have no idea what determined the air draft of the Orwell bridge, but it could just be that it is to provide sufficient clearance for a Thames barge, which I would estimate needs between 30 and 36m to pass without housing the topmast - the Orwell bridge provides 38m above HAT.
The angle the bridge makes with the lock would not concern me too much. Provided the spacing of the ridge piers is considerably greater than the width of the lock (not difficult), and they don't put a pier in the centre of the lock approach, any vessel which fits into the lock will have no difficulty. There's no requirement to pass under a bridge at 90 degrees to the line of the bridge.
Peter
PeterWright
Well-Known Member
I know nothing of this address, of Daniel Humphrey or of Ipswich Ltd. / Upper Orwell Crossings Ltd. , so I don't know what you're trying to insinuate while hidden behind your pseudonyms. I even had to look on Google maps to find where West Road is.
Peter Wright
Peter Wright
UOC
New Member
I don't think it is helpful to a conversation for it to all get confrontational.
toyboy, In the original post I began with "So" and the third sentence began with "Early indications appear to suggest" so it wasn't said as fact (the other more direct sentences were said as facts because those parts were) but with further clarification I hope it has cleared it up.
Peter Wright, I agree that by not having a lower pedestrian deck it would be more flexible but the design in my opinion is made to look like trees (a big feature with the current MP) which I believe is a partial reason why the road and pedestrian part is separated - a lower branch if you like. In my view, pedestrians and cyclists don't need to travel across the main bridge at all... the main bridge is to reduce the A14 Ten-T network traffic by 10% (HGV, car vehicles etc) i.e. off the Orwell Bridge and the other bridges is to unlock the Island site for a mixed residential and commercial use for the university.
Secretary of State direction here... https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/R...ction-from-DfT-for-Upper-Orwell-Crossings.pdf
I am also very concerned about the loss of Ipswich's heritage by such a bridge. Ships appear in both the borough and county council's coats of arms, past coins, seal from the 13th Century and featured on so many buildings across the town including Neptune's Horses etc. it would be such a shame to lose all this history in return for a rebrand of Tower Ramparts shopping centre as Sailmakers.
I would personally prefer a more fitting use for the Island site but since the Ipswich Local Plan 1997 (perhaps even earlier) it has been earmarked for housing development. This is partially due to the acquisition of the port to ABP. The main bridge isn't required to use the Island site anyhow.
toyboy, Epsilon House Business Centre? An serviced office centre on Ransomes Europark, part of an office village. The registered office for thousands of businesses and offices for a hundred or so. From IT firms to charities. Link here http://www.epsilonhouse.co.uk/ I am not sure what an address has to do with anything?
Also, what is the purpose of editing and publicly sharing confidential emails? If someone is countering an accusation and they have taken the time and effort to explain to you what you are saying isn't true, why share it?
toyboy, In the original post I began with "So" and the third sentence began with "Early indications appear to suggest" so it wasn't said as fact (the other more direct sentences were said as facts because those parts were) but with further clarification I hope it has cleared it up.
Peter Wright, I agree that by not having a lower pedestrian deck it would be more flexible but the design in my opinion is made to look like trees (a big feature with the current MP) which I believe is a partial reason why the road and pedestrian part is separated - a lower branch if you like. In my view, pedestrians and cyclists don't need to travel across the main bridge at all... the main bridge is to reduce the A14 Ten-T network traffic by 10% (HGV, car vehicles etc) i.e. off the Orwell Bridge and the other bridges is to unlock the Island site for a mixed residential and commercial use for the university.
Secretary of State direction here... https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/R...ction-from-DfT-for-Upper-Orwell-Crossings.pdf
I am also very concerned about the loss of Ipswich's heritage by such a bridge. Ships appear in both the borough and county council's coats of arms, past coins, seal from the 13th Century and featured on so many buildings across the town including Neptune's Horses etc. it would be such a shame to lose all this history in return for a rebrand of Tower Ramparts shopping centre as Sailmakers.
I would personally prefer a more fitting use for the Island site but since the Ipswich Local Plan 1997 (perhaps even earlier) it has been earmarked for housing development. This is partially due to the acquisition of the port to ABP. The main bridge isn't required to use the Island site anyhow.
toyboy, Epsilon House Business Centre? An serviced office centre on Ransomes Europark, part of an office village. The registered office for thousands of businesses and offices for a hundred or so. From IT firms to charities. Link here http://www.epsilonhouse.co.uk/ I am not sure what an address has to do with anything?
Also, what is the purpose of editing and publicly sharing confidential emails? If someone is countering an accusation and they have taken the time and effort to explain to you what you are saying isn't true, why share it?
toyboy
Well-Known Member
I apologise Peter. I had assumed all the regular posters knew me as Peter Turtill. I also assumed you would have recognised the address as being common to many other company's as it is where rented offices are available in Ipswich. It also belongs to Mike Spears son in law.
toyboy
Well-Known Member
I didn't edit anthing as far as I am aware. I posted the information you mailed me to let all sailors here know your only interest is for your micro political party to gain votes in the local elections and has no authority as far as construction being speculated upon concerning the Orwell.
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
Good ere, innit 
irate:
irate:
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Good ere, innit
Better than the lounge :encouragement:
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
I am concerned by the comments about focus moving away fromthe marina's
If they are closed down it will be a hammer blow to the local leisure boating industry. There are precious few marinas and boating facilities on the East Coast. It is impossible to create new ones because the bug huggers have taken over designating every yard of mud on all the rivers as everso precious that no one is allowed to touch any of it.
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
But all we have is a post from someone we don't know, making guesses and supposition.
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
True,
But the style of writing seems to indicate some inside knowledge. Unless UOC is a total twot sitting at a computer trolling.
But the style of writing seems to indicate some inside knowledge. Unless UOC is a total twot sitting at a computer trolling.
UOC
New Member
Most certainly not a troll. I have been following the project since it was called the Wet Dock Crossing (the bridge originally intended to be funding by local housing developments) and have looked through all the publicly available documents relating to it. I have also been following local government plans for the town, including Ipswich Local Plan, IP-One, ILDP etc.
Enterprise Island is a bit deceptive, since at least 1997 the island site has been earmarked for 70% residential usage including a small park area on the west of the site. Even with the planned university expansion - which is nothing more than spin on the original plans, approximately half of the land is still expected to be residential. The green space idea will be scrapped but overall should be well landscaped. The ratio will vary depending on planning and actual interest in the partners of the project (Cambrdige Uni and BT) not to mention cost of construction. The ideology behind it is high-waged biotech or IT jobs in "labs" or offices on the island with housing on site for employees with low-car usage (no need to commute) - this clearly isn't going to work, but politicians know best. Not to mention with the housing planned to be built near BT's Adastral Park this concept is rather flawed.
The MP hasn't mentioned this to constituents at all - you hear "enterprise" and think commercial. The emphasis on the £20m Government funding to complete the Wine Rack is to avoid losing interest in the residential lots on the Island site. Clearly the high-risk flooding is a barrier to residential development in the area, the flood barrier being installed should have been one of the first development projects in the area. Nothing is that easy but all the effort Ben has put in to getting the bridge (which was a shelved project, along with an East and West Bank Road) funding could have been obtained earlier. The following rather recent SCC guide suggests 380 homes on the Island site... https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/R...nning/Ipswich-Enterprise-Island-Optimized.pdf
I don't think the marinas will close down when the bridge is built... but if the yachts go elsewhere (perhaps due to reasons of access)... over time they might be forced into that decision if their business is no longer viable. Pre-2015 General Election we were all told about a swing bridge or lifting bridge - wouldn't have looked as good but would have been functional. The Ipswich2020 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR0jAS4z0z4 With any new development in the area it will inflate property values (and therefore rent where applicable) and business rates (except the island site itself which is exempt from rates). The Ipswich Maritime Festival is now held biennially, with an "Ipswich Waterfront Celebration" occurring in alternate years. http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/n...ears-with-ipswich-maritime-festival-1-4543584 The marinas and wider waterfront area is being used for a nice backdrop to the university. I would have a guess (speculating now) that in 20 years the entire area surrounding the wet dock will be exclusively used for the university.
Enterprise Island is a bit deceptive, since at least 1997 the island site has been earmarked for 70% residential usage including a small park area on the west of the site. Even with the planned university expansion - which is nothing more than spin on the original plans, approximately half of the land is still expected to be residential. The green space idea will be scrapped but overall should be well landscaped. The ratio will vary depending on planning and actual interest in the partners of the project (Cambrdige Uni and BT) not to mention cost of construction. The ideology behind it is high-waged biotech or IT jobs in "labs" or offices on the island with housing on site for employees with low-car usage (no need to commute) - this clearly isn't going to work, but politicians know best. Not to mention with the housing planned to be built near BT's Adastral Park this concept is rather flawed.
The MP hasn't mentioned this to constituents at all - you hear "enterprise" and think commercial. The emphasis on the £20m Government funding to complete the Wine Rack is to avoid losing interest in the residential lots on the Island site. Clearly the high-risk flooding is a barrier to residential development in the area, the flood barrier being installed should have been one of the first development projects in the area. Nothing is that easy but all the effort Ben has put in to getting the bridge (which was a shelved project, along with an East and West Bank Road) funding could have been obtained earlier. The following rather recent SCC guide suggests 380 homes on the Island site... https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/R...nning/Ipswich-Enterprise-Island-Optimized.pdf
I don't think the marinas will close down when the bridge is built... but if the yachts go elsewhere (perhaps due to reasons of access)... over time they might be forced into that decision if their business is no longer viable. Pre-2015 General Election we were all told about a swing bridge or lifting bridge - wouldn't have looked as good but would have been functional. The Ipswich2020 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR0jAS4z0z4 With any new development in the area it will inflate property values (and therefore rent where applicable) and business rates (except the island site itself which is exempt from rates). The Ipswich Maritime Festival is now held biennially, with an "Ipswich Waterfront Celebration" occurring in alternate years. http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/n...ears-with-ipswich-maritime-festival-1-4543584 The marinas and wider waterfront area is being used for a nice backdrop to the university. I would have a guess (speculating now) that in 20 years the entire area surrounding the wet dock will be exclusively used for the university.