CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Forth Road Bridge corrosion is being slowed down

(37 posts)

No tags yet.


12

  1. crowriver
    Member

    Looks like Chicken Licken was wrong:

    CORROSION of the main cables of the Forth Road Bridge is being successfully slowed down by blowing dry air through them, its operators announced today.

    The latest inspection gives “strong comfort” that the dehumidification system is “retarding the corrosion of the bridge wires”, according to the Forth Estuary Transport Authority.

    The check follows previous inspections in 2004 and 2008, which led to ministers ordering a new £1.6 billion bridge to be built because of fears that lorries would have to be banned from the bridge if its loss of strength caused by the corrosion was not stemmed.

    Chief engineer and bridgemaster Barry Colford said today: “A degree of uncertainty concerning the magnitude of future strength loss of the main cables will always remain and the cables will require to be continually monitored, and be subject to a regime of internal inspections and strength evaluations, for the remainder of the service life of the bridge. However, the results of this latest inspection, albeit reduced in scope, are encouraging. The dehumidification system applied to both cables appears to be slowing down the rate of deterioration.”

    The results confirm a Scotsman exclusive a year ago that corrosion was being stabilised because the dry air pumped into the 2ft thick cables since 2009 was coming out dry. Mr Colford said then: “I am expecting that we will find a situation no worse than in 2008.”

    However, he also stressed the new crossing was required to avert major traffic disruption on the Forth Road Bridge during increasingly-frequent repair work.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/forth-road-bridge-corrosion-is-being-slowed-down-1-2800501

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Oh, it's official now... The standard method of stopping corrosion in the main cables of a suspension bridge works. Sigh.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. kaputnik
    Moderator

    However, he also stressed the new crossing was required to avert major traffic disruption on the Forth Road Bridge during increasingly-frequent repair work.

    Amazing! De facto admission that it's a £1.6bn contraflow!

    "We didn't actually need it, but thank Goodness we are building it anyway, because a few people might have taken a bit longer to get where they're going on the odd occassion".

    Apparently the Forth Road Bridge collected £16m per annum in tolls when they were abolished. Kind of puts into perspective how ridiculously unaffordable and subsidised the new bridge is.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "The latest check, made last October and costing £2.6 million, involved unwrapping the cable, which comprises 11,618 pencil-thin wires.

    It found a total of 55 broken wires in six of the eight sections of cables inspected, with the greatest corrosion at the lowest point of the cable/"

    That doesn't seem much...

    "This should result in a further slowing down of deterioration of the cables and lead to a reduction in the loss of magnitude in the factor of safety"

    Why can't people just speak English? 'reduction in the loss of magnitude in the factor of safety'?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Morningsider
    Member

    Here's the FETA report:

    http://www.feta.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Item%2006%20-%20Third%20Main%20Cable%20Inspection%20Report.pdf

    I don't think it could be much clearer that the dehumidification is working and that new corrosion has effectively been prevented.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    And if that's the case then why will there be 'more frequent repairs' that necessitate having the £1.6bn contraflow*?

    *as it shall now forever be known, copyright kaputnik...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. crowriver
    Member

    Apparently the Forth Road Bridge collected £16m per annum in tolls when they were abolished. Kind of puts into perspective how ridiculously unaffordable and subsidised the new bridge is.

    Don't forget we have a Driving Transport Minister whose proudest boast (apart from yomping over the Falklands in the Marines) is the fines that he didn't pay for refusing to pay the Skye bridge toll...

    Militant motorists' rights activist/trained killer turned profligate spender of capital funding on needless road infrastructure...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. cc
    Member

    Great! So we can keep cars and lorries on the old bridge and the new one!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. crowriver
    Member

    In his maiden speech at Holyrood in 2007, Mr Brown admitted he had been convicted of not paying the toll. He told the parliament: "Indeed, I was convicted for refusing to pay the Skye bridge toll back in the mid-1990s. The Skye bridge toll campaign was another successful campaign to get rid of unjust tolls."

    "It would be nice if the Lord Advocate were to consider quashing my conviction and those of others who opposed that disgraceful toll, but I suppose that she could just as easily come after me for the £50 fine that I have not paid in 12 years."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11987571

    15 years now...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    "

    BUILDING a new jam-busting bridge across the Dee in Aberdeen could cost as much as £100 million, the Evening Express can reveal today.

    "

    http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3131062

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. Morningsider
    Member

    crowriver - the FRB tolls had paid off the loans for the construction of the FRB and contributed significant amounts to the on-going maintenance of the bridge.

    If the tolls on the FRB had been kept then tolls could have been introduced on the second bridge (obviously they would have had to rise considerably, but FETA had planned to introduce variable tolls in 2005 of up to £4 for single occupancy peak time car trips, but the idea was rejected by the Scottish Government).

    This is significant as the second bridge could also have been paid for at no cost to the taxpayer - with costs being met by bridge users. To give an idea of how this can happen you just have to look at the second Severn crossing. This will have been paid off through around £1bn of bridge tolls within about 21 years - and that was effectively a PFI! The Scottish Government could have done this - but didn't want to levy a toll, so everyone in Scotland has to pay instead.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. crowriver
    Member

    @Morningsider, aye but if they brought back tolls imagine the hoo-ha from the Alan Douglases of the east coast. "What!!! £4 just to drive across a bridge? Daylight robbery, etc. etc."

    I also note that a commenter on this story on the news site has likened the non-dualling of the A9 to a "war crime".

    To misuse a turn of phrase, it is rarely difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a motorist with a grievance.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Really do have to wonder at them cracking on with the new bridge before knowing the outcome of the attempts at defying the corrosion.

    To paraphrase Alan Douglas, £1.6bn would have been quite useful to schools or hospitals. But it IS ridiculous that Scotland's cities don't have motorways linking them. Oh yes. No really. It's like we're in the third world or something.

    That war crime comment is, hopefully, tongue in cheek surely! A rather extreme Godwin's Law parallel if not.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. cc
    Member

    I expect the war crime comment refers to the A9's safety record.

    But, you know, maybe they could drive more slowly.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. crowriver
    Member

    @WC, I doubt it. There's a certain wing of nationalism which still sees everything through the lens of the Highland Clearances, Cullodden, etc. Seeing the central belt, and Glasgow in particular, as Brit loyalists/redcoats suppressing the plucky Highlanders. To a certain extent they have a point, but the A9 is a different issue.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. crowriver
    Member

    MEDIA RELEASE
    SCOTTISH GREEN MSPs

    20 February 2013

    FORTH BRIDGE REPORT BLOWS SNP'S REASON FOR NEW CROSSING

    Responding to a report by the chief engineer of the Forth Road Bridge, showing that "the safety of the main cables will not diminish significantly in the future as long as the dehumidification system continues to function", Alison Johnstone, Green MSP for Lothian, said:

    “This report removes the central justification that the SNP made for blowing over a billion pounds on a new bridge. The Scottish Greens were the only party arguing strongly that repairing the existing bridge, even if the cables had to be replaced, would have cost a tiny fraction of the price and with no closure of the bridge.

    "Those who wanted to see if the repairs worked before blowing billions on a new bridge were the responsible ones, while other parties charged recklessly ahead.

    Alison added:

    “The Scottish Government must keep their promise to restrict use of the existing bridge to buses, bikes and pedestrians, otherwise they will simply have created an eight-lane motorway over the Forth, encouraging ever more traffic and congestion coming into Edinburgh.”

    (Ends)

    Chief Engineer's report:
    http://www.feta.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Item%2006%20-%20Third%20Main%20Cable%20Inspection%20Report.pdf

    Jason Rose
    Head of Media
    Scottish Green Party
    The Scottish Parliament

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. kaputnik
    Moderator

    But it IS ridiculous that Scotland's cities don't have motorways linking them.

    Sometimes our journalists forget just how small our cities really are. Even our biggest pair aren't that big in the grand scheme of things.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. crowriver
    Member

    We might be small, but we Scots drive above our weight (the latter increasing the more we do so).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. PS
    Member

    "Really do have to wonder at them cracking on with the new bridge before knowing the outcome of the attempts at defying the corrosion."

    Ah, but if they hadn't cracked on with the new bridge procurement before the results came in there was a real risk that the old bridge would have to be closed before the new one was opened, causing all sorts of carmageddon and the collapse of society as we know it...

    That's well worth £1.6bn of anyone's money...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. Morningsider
    Member

    PS - not even that. FETA had already extended the earliest date that the bridge may have had to close by two years well before the Scottish Government decided to go ahead with the new bridge. A decision could have been made later this year with no risk to cross Forth traffic.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. minus six
    Member

    The Scottish Government must keep their promise to restrict use of the existing bridge to buses, bikes and pedestrians

    fat chance...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. crowriver
    Member

    Really do have to wonder at them cracking on with the new bridge before knowing the outcome of the attempts at defying the corrosion.

    I think there are various factors at work there, all political rather than pragmatic decision making.

    - The government needed to be seen to "do something".
    - Presenting the situation as a crisis meant cross-party support was ensured (except the Greens)
    - The atmosphere of crisis, plus cross-party support, meant the UK government bowedf to pressure to release capital funds earlier to help build the bridge: a "victory" over Westminster for the SNP.
    - It's a big willy waving exercise in national virility symbols, allowing grandstanding, ribbon cutting ceremonies, etc.
    - The bridge is "toll free": a victory for "the common man/common sense".
    - Spending so much on roads placates the big civil engineering firms, and means that less glamorous public transport and active travel schemes can't get their hands on the cash. Another victory for "the common man/common sense/hard pressed otherwise law abiding family motorists".

    Conversely, if they had waited for the outcome of the tests before deciding to build, all that money would have been allocated somewhere else. All the plans, surveys, architects' fees, etc. would be seen as a "waste of money". The scepticism and criticism would have set in, cross-party support might have been lost; it would have come across as yet another failed grandiose pipe dream that came to naught...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Agree 100%.

    Now that is depressing! ;)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. Morningsider
    Member

    Just as the 10% of all trips by bike by 2020 is officially a "vision", the use of the FRB by bikes, pedestrians, taxis and buses is simply part of a "managed crossing strategy" - the Scottish Government has NEVER promised that the FRB will always remain off limits to cars, vans etc.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. DaveC
    Member

    The Fife half of the share of Toll money was used to build cycle path infrastructure in Fife. Now we have no tolls we have limited new money for cycle path provision. Money from tolls was used to make the coastal path between Inverkeithing and Dalgety Bay.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  26. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    Morningsider: "the Scottish Government has NEVER promised that the FRB will always remain off limits to cars, vans etc."

    Which begs the question how is the provision for bikes on the existing bridge going to any better than it is now? Less noisy and smelly? Is that it?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  27. crowriver
    Member

    Scot Gov has however, pretty much promised not to levy tolls on any bridges. Ever. Assuming the SNP remains in office, of course.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  28. crowriver
    Member

    3 May 2013

    REPORT SHOWS EXTRA FORTH CROSSING IS SALMOND'S FOLLY

    Scottish Greens say a report by the chief engineer of the Forth Road Bridge, showing that the anchorages of the structure are "in good condition with no real evidence of corrosion", proves that the SNP, supported by Labour, Libdems and Tories, were reckless to blow over a billion pounds on an additional crossing.

    The Scottish Greens were the only party that argued in favour of repairing the existing bridge as this would have saved millions and not required its closure.

    A report in February of this year showed that dehumidification of the main cables has worked.

    Patrick Harvie, Green MSP for Glasgow and transport spokesperson for the Scottish Greens, said:

    "It is now crystal clear that over a billion pounds of public funds were squandered on an ego-trip for ministers, with other parties simply following the herd. The latest findings prove how scandalous it was to plough ahead with the additional crossing without knowing whether there was actually a problem that needed fixed.

    "Back in February we challenged the First Minister to explain what would prevent future governments going back on his pledge that the existing road bridge would only be used for buses and bikes but he failed to do so. The government should accept its reasoning was flawed and explain how it intends to prevent such situations from happening again."

    (Ends)

    Chief Engineer's report:
    http://www.forthroadbridge.org/sites/default/files/documents/Item%2004%20-%20Anchorage%20Investigation%20Update.pdf

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    "

    The spectacular new Queensferry Bridge spanning the Firth of Forth is unlikely to be finished in time for its scheduled opening in 2016, civil engineering experts have told the Sunday Herald.

    The probable delay to the road bridge, which will have no cost implications to the Scottish taxpayer, comes after a 15-month hiatus caused by difficulties in setting the foundations of the fixed-price £1.5 billion structure.

    ...

    Construction of the Forth Road Bridge from 1958 to 1964 was delayed for the best part of a year due to bad weather. The decision to press ahead in poor conditions led to corrosion problems that shortened the life of the bridge.

    "

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/business/company-news/deep-trouble.23509317

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    "

    It could mean closing the bridge for three years but would enable it to carry more traffic than just buses and taxis after the adjacent Queensferry Crossing opens in two years’ time.

    "

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/road-bridge-chief-says-deck-should-be-replaced-1-3333990

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin