RE: Hammersmith Flyover: more than temporary trouble?
Discussion
A similar problem afflicted the Tinsley Viaduct in Sheffield. This was built by a bunch of John Wayne's chums that have since disappeared. Allegedly, the problem was originally brought on my construction workers using the framework as some sort of makeshift toilet during construction. It cost many, many pounds to put right but you'll notice that the M1 still drops to two lanes over that stretch.
Perhaps they should have used the structural engineers that carried out such fine work on Ms Mansfields brassieres to build the things
Perhaps they should have used the structural engineers that carried out such fine work on Ms Mansfields brassieres to build the things
Living near the tinsley viaduct I can say I've not heard about the toilet issue but I do remember when it was built the statement from my grandad was 'that think doesn't look very stable!!'
he wasn't a driver or an engineer. and looking at it now it's had a lot of work done under the skin, but I do belive it was touch and go for the viaduct for a while, it was also built taking into account the wind resistance from the cooling towers that only came down a few years ago, there was a lot of strengthening work due to the removal of said towers in the refit too.
he wasn't a driver or an engineer. and looking at it now it's had a lot of work done under the skin, but I do belive it was touch and go for the viaduct for a while, it was also built taking into account the wind resistance from the cooling towers that only came down a few years ago, there was a lot of strengthening work due to the removal of said towers in the refit too.
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?
Another idea for funding it could be to make drivers pay who enter London. Don't know how well it would work and if it would be that popular.drewbagz said:
Forget the £32bn it's going to cost the UK taxpayer to create a high speed line between Birmingham and London,
Agreed!32bn? Please... a number dreamt up by the same morons who costed the Olympics, lets be sensible and figure on at "least" 50bn for the Goverments trainset (who wants to go to Birmingham anyway?)
I think it's safe to say over the next 20yrs almost all 50's-70's era bridges, elevated roads, car parks, office blocks and residential towers etc will need replacing or very major repairs, the cost of which is probably north of 100bn
Podger said:
Concrete 'cancer' is old news, what does the populous expect, when structures were built in the 60's !!! no technology can stop water ingress totally. Maintenance takes time and money, live with it !!!
It does take time and money, neither of which seem to have been allocated to maintaining this important artery into London. That's why people are understandably fed up.Will any one be held accountable for the huge cost of both the disruption and repairs?
In Scandanavia, they stopped salting most of their older concrete bridges/flyovers back in the early 80s (or even earlier in some cases) to avoid aggravating the corrosion already there. Drivers there use common sense and drive vehicles equipped for the conditions tho - with London, everyone expects their BMW 1 Series to scale mountains...
As for cost - replacing flyovers like that is REALLY expensive. They reckon it costs £30M/mile to lay a regular motorway - ten times that to build elevated sections - see here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924687
That's proper money which - truth be told - I don't think the taxpayer (national or council) can afford so they should be looking to either businesses or private ownership to replace such things (at a massive cost per use, of course)(*)
(*) and I don't mean scam deals whereby the taxpayer pays for it and private companies line their pockets - see Skye Bridge etc.
As for cost - replacing flyovers like that is REALLY expensive. They reckon it costs £30M/mile to lay a regular motorway - ten times that to build elevated sections - see here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924687
That's proper money which - truth be told - I don't think the taxpayer (national or council) can afford so they should be looking to either businesses or private ownership to replace such things (at a massive cost per use, of course)(*)
(*) and I don't mean scam deals whereby the taxpayer pays for it and private companies line their pockets - see Skye Bridge etc.
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!...
JJ78 said:
tell me... what will happen to the new super mega skyscrapers in 50 years..... how do you knock one of them down???
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. 
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. Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff