RE: Hammersmith Flyover: more than temporary trouble?
Discussion
Seen this?
"The Flyover’s method of construction is relatively rare in the UK, and there are few other similar structures – for which TfL and the Department for Transport (DfT) should be grateful. It was built in 1961 by the family company of the then Minister of Transport, Sir Ernest Marples, who passed his shares on during his time in government – to his wife!"
Ernest Marples sounds like an ethical chap - not.
"The Flyover’s method of construction is relatively rare in the UK, and there are few other similar structures – for which TfL and the Department for Transport (DfT) should be grateful. It was built in 1961 by the family company of the then Minister of Transport, Sir Ernest Marples, who passed his shares on during his time in government – to his wife!"
Ernest Marples sounds like an ethical chap - not.
Dogwatch][pedant said:
I know it doesn't make much difference to the outcome but is this 'proper' concrete cancer? I thought that was where the concrete itself started to crumble due to the ingredients reacting over time. [/pedant]
Don't believe it is but a) it looks good in newspaper headlines and b) it, er, looks good in newspaper headlines...Riggers said:
Don't believe it is but a) it looks good in newspaper headlines and b) it, er, looks good in newspaper headlines...
It's not the concrete - it's the cables encased within it apparently. They've corroded over time and have begun to snap.As a daily user of the flyover (or rather, ex daily user_ it need sorting. Thing is, as usual, they will just patch it up to last another 5-10 years rather than demolishing an rebuilding it properly.
Traveller said:
I believe there are some excellent Middle Eastern demolition experts, that use rather unconventional means, but will bring down a large skyscraper in seconds. It has already been quite successfully trialled. 
Bin Laden was actually an qualified civil engineer. However he only thought the top parts of the towers would fall down so obviously did not quite get his sums right...Perhaps they're gonna let all the roads into London deteriorate to such an extent, people will have to move North and catch HS2 - there you go, £32(60+)Billion cost justified!! 
Or perhaps they should actually spend some of the motorists tax on the fecking roads! Oops, too busy spending it on benefit scroungers
, criminal's Sky, quangos, consultants, 'elf n safety', EU subsidies, etc, etc, etc...
If this were Japan, it'd be sorted by March!
Rant over!
Or perhaps they should actually spend some of the motorists tax on the fecking roads! Oops, too busy spending it on benefit scroungers
, criminal's Sky, quangos, consultants, 'elf n safety', EU subsidies, etc, etc, etc...If this were Japan, it'd be sorted by March!
Rant over!
Ismbard Kingdom Brunel built loads of bridges for railways in the 1800's.They used funny things called bricks and his cronies in civil engineering built some really quite big things - like the Ribblehead viaduct or that massive thing in Stockport. Don't seem to be falling down now and they're a bit older (and probably over engineered) compred to the stuff put up in the 1960's - not just bridges - was that tower block called Ronan Point?
Another great example - Forth railway bridge - all in good shape, Forth road bridge - questions about replacing it.
We are paying the price for the jerry building that Harold Wilson told us would drive the white heat of the technological revolution. Perhaps we should have stoked the boilers just a little longer - or at least employed civil servants who could see beyond the ends of their pencils.
Another great example - Forth railway bridge - all in good shape, Forth road bridge - questions about replacing it.
We are paying the price for the jerry building that Harold Wilson told us would drive the white heat of the technological revolution. Perhaps we should have stoked the boilers just a little longer - or at least employed civil servants who could see beyond the ends of their pencils.
If you want longevity with roads and bridges, get the Italians in. They build them to last.
I doubt modern stressed concrete and steel structures will last much over 100 years,even less if the maintenance is poor. The Victorians certainly engineered with longevity in mind, none of this engineered lifespan, It will stand, end of.
I doubt modern stressed concrete and steel structures will last much over 100 years,even less if the maintenance is poor. The Victorians certainly engineered with longevity in mind, none of this engineered lifespan, It will stand, end of.
Jim1556 said:
Perhaps they're gonna let all the roads into London deteriorate to such an extent, people will have to move North and catch HS2 - there you go, £32(60+)Billion cost justified!!
Fine provided you don't need to use any of Birmingham's steel-and-concrete roadways ... oh dear. I joke, but it would be interesting to know exactly what budget is earmarked for replacement and repair of this sort of thing over the next few years. Might have to do some actual journalism and find out...
Stig said:
Seen this?
"The Flyover’s method of construction is relatively rare in the UK, and there are few other similar structures – for which TfL and the Department for Transport (DfT) should be grateful. It was built in 1961 by the family company of the then Minister of Transport, Sir Ernest Marples, who passed his shares on during his time in government – to his wife!"
Ernest Marples sounds like an ethical chap - not.
The same Ernest Marples who appointed Dr Richard Beeching to conclude we should shut down railways and build more roads. No vested interest there, no siree..."The Flyover’s method of construction is relatively rare in the UK, and there are few other similar structures – for which TfL and the Department for Transport (DfT) should be grateful. It was built in 1961 by the family company of the then Minister of Transport, Sir Ernest Marples, who passed his shares on during his time in government – to his wife!"
Ernest Marples sounds like an ethical chap - not.
[quote=Sivraj]
It sounds like a very good suggestion,
We'd have to make sure that the money was spent on the roads and not siphoned off to pay for other government short falls though (not that they would ever consider such a thing!...
[/quote
If all the road tax income was spent on the roads(Circa £500 billion i think Mike Rutherford at the Telegraph estimated) you could resurfase the whole country fields included,-- not that i want that as I am a farmer!!
It sounds like a very good suggestion,
We'd have to make sure that the money was spent on the roads and not siphoned off to pay for other government short falls though (not that they would ever consider such a thing!...
[/quote
If all the road tax income was spent on the roads(Circa £500 billion i think Mike Rutherford at the Telegraph estimated) you could resurfase the whole country fields included,-- not that i want that as I am a farmer!!
RichB said:
Riggers said:
Nope, but it would mean you might not have to salt the roads, which is what really rusts those reinforcing gubbins...
Not in favour of yet more legislation against motorists personally. Just accept the fact that 50 year old concrete structures do need replacing. The Chiswick flyover (M4) has had loads of work done underneath it over the last 10 years. It's quite simply poor planning by the responsible authorities. Personally I enjoy a good snowy / icy playground. But there would be many who would rush to buy snow tyres because the fun factor in them is below zero. Also their ability to assess the road conditions is as bad as beige Volvo driver's judgement.
As for Taxes For London's plans, they are laying the foundations in media hype to pay their friends exorbitant amounts of tax payers wonga to fix this quick. (Well, by 2020 if we're lucky).
Open in time for the olympics....That's a good one, got any more?
Why they ever thought structural steel lines encased in poor quality concrete would be best i will never know.They haven't even polished or blocked the weather out, just bare concrete no protection.It was all a rush, like most things over budgeted and rushed.Either iron beams, brick, aluminium, titanium or a mixed compound.Thats 1st prioty, the right materials, method and equipment.
bozmandb9 said:
Sivraj said:
AngryPartsBloke said:
If only there was some way to collect some sort of fee each year from drivers in order to maintain the roads, maybe something you could get at the post office or on this internet thing?
It sounds like a very good suggestion,We'd have to make sure that the money was spent on the roads and not siphoned off to pay for other government short falls though (not that they would ever consider such a thing!...
Jasper Gilder said:
Ismbard Kingdom Brunel built loads of bridges for railways in the 1800's.They used funny things called bricks and his cronies in civil engineering built some really quite big things - like the Ribblehead viaduct or that massive thing in Stockport. Don't seem to be falling down now and they're a bit older (and probably over engineered) compred to the stuff put up in the 1960's - not just bridges - was that tower block called Ronan Point?
Another great example - Forth railway bridge - all in good shape, Forth road bridge - questions about replacing it.
We are paying the price for the jerry building that Harold Wilson told us would drive the white heat of the technological revolution. Perhaps we should have stoked the boilers just a little longer - or at least employed civil servants who could see beyond the ends of their pencils.
If only the labour costs of the 1960s had been the same as the 1860s, they could have built it from bricks. Stupid child-labour bleeding hearts ruining our transport infrastructure with their short sightedness!Another great example - Forth railway bridge - all in good shape, Forth road bridge - questions about replacing it.
We are paying the price for the jerry building that Harold Wilson told us would drive the white heat of the technological revolution. Perhaps we should have stoked the boilers just a little longer - or at least employed civil servants who could see beyond the ends of their pencils.
Has anyone but me noticed that new bridges being built on motorways, with steel sections, these days aren't being painted ! South side of the Dartford crossing, A3, M4, and the widening of the north section of the M25. Neither are the steel cassons that retain the soil embankments. I wonder how long these are going to last ?
task said:
Perhaps if more of our road tax was spent on improving roads and less pandering to the left-wing militia then the road sections could have been maintained to a higher standard in the first place.
As for only opening it for the Olympics, what a cop out.
Completely agree, this should be thought in schools; that in good times you save money so that you are not screwed when times get toughAs for only opening it for the Olympics, what a cop out.
And allocate resources adequately and sufficiently so that projects are completed on time and on budget
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff