|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Dec 22, 2022 22:15:38 GMT
I’ve heard that that it will be able to take the weight of electric single deckers. A BYD-ADL E200EV has a weight of 11-12.5t (empty) depending on spec, and I think Gross weight is rated at 18.7t Until few years ago, 2 axle buses were limited to max Gross weight of 18.0t, so buses like E400H and Wrightbus Gemini 3 were designed to the 18t max The weight limit was raised to 19t for electric 2axle buses few years ago, and has since been extended to all 2axle buses. But there remain some restrictions, Richmond bridge used to be 16.5t or 17t, was raised to 18t about 2013 so double deckers became unrestricted, but can’t take fully loaded BCEs as they are to 19t gross weight spec. So in theory a loaded E200EV might be heavier than a hybrid Volvo Wrightbus like RATPs VH class, having been built to the new 19t limit What will be allowed over Hammersmith bridge depends on what the new weight restriction is. Prior to closure was just 7.5t with an exemption for specific lighter single deck diesel buses. I wouldn’t be surprised if, after the strengthening is complete, traffic is restricted even further to either just TfL buses/pedestrians/cyclists or just cars/pedestrians/cyclists excluding buses and lorries. Either way this just seems like a short term plastering job as opposed to a long term solution to a long term problem. It’s been discussed many times but a long term solution would be to dismantle the bridge and move it further down the river to create an additional foot/cycling crossing in Barnes, but that needs a lot of money. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Dec 22, 2022 23:22:09 GMT
I’ve heard that that it will be able to take the weight of electric single deckers. A BYD-ADL E200EV has a weight of 11-12.5t (empty) depending on spec, and I think Gross weight is rated at 18.7t Until few years ago, 2 axle buses were limited to max Gross weight of 18.0t, so buses like E400H and Wrightbus Gemini 3 were designed to the 18t max The weight limit was raised to 19t for electric 2axle buses few years ago, and has since been extended to all 2axle buses. But there remain some restrictions, Richmond bridge used to be 16.5t or 17t, was raised to 18t about 2013 so double deckers became unrestricted, but can’t take fully loaded BCEs as they are to 19t gross weight spec. So in theory a loaded E200EV might be heavier than a hybrid Volvo Wrightbus like RATPs VH class, having been built to the new 19t limit What will be allowed over Hammersmith bridge depends on what the new weight restriction is. Prior to closure was just 7.5t with an exemption for specific lighter single deck diesel buses. Since the N22 goes across Richmond Bridge what will happen when the N22 needs EVs since BCEs can’t over Richmond Bridge? Sorry off topic. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Dec 22, 2022 23:24:09 GMT
A BYD-ADL E200EV has a weight of 11-12.5t (empty) depending on spec, and I think Gross weight is rated at 18.7t Until few years ago, 2 axle buses were limited to max Gross weight of 18.0t, so buses like E400H and Wrightbus Gemini 3 were designed to the 18t max The weight limit was raised to 19t for electric 2axle buses few years ago, and has since been extended to all 2axle buses. But there remain some restrictions, Richmond bridge used to be 16.5t or 17t, was raised to 18t about 2013 so double deckers became unrestricted, but can’t take fully loaded BCEs as they are to 19t gross weight spec. So in theory a loaded E200EV might be heavier than a hybrid Volvo Wrightbus like RATPs VH class, having been built to the new 19t limit What will be allowed over Hammersmith bridge depends on what the new weight restriction is. Prior to closure was just 7.5t with an exemption for specific lighter single deck diesel buses. I wouldn’t be surprised if, after the strengthening is complete, traffic is restricted even further to either just TfL buses/pedestrians/cyclists or just cars/pedestrians/cyclists excluding buses and lorries. Either way this just seems like a short term plastering job as opposed to a long term solution to a long term problem. It’s been discussed many times but a long term solution would be to dismantle the bridge and move it further down the river to create an additional foot/cycling crossing in Barnes, but that needs a lot of money. What needs to happen is that Hammersmith Bridge needs to be pedestrianised and new stronger bridge needs to be built needs to be built next to it. Sadly that costs money too. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Dec 22, 2022 23:46:53 GMT
I wouldn’t be surprised if, after the strengthening is complete, traffic is restricted even further to either just TfL buses/pedestrians/cyclists or just cars/pedestrians/cyclists excluding buses and lorries. Either way this just seems like a short term plastering job as opposed to a long term solution to a long term problem. It’s been discussed many times but a long term solution would be to dismantle the bridge and move it further down the river to create an additional foot/cycling crossing in Barnes, but that needs a lot of money. What needs to happen is that Hammersmith Bridge needs to be pedestrianised and new stronger bridge needs to be built needs to be built next to it. Sadly that costs money too. To my mind the real problem with Hammersmith Bridge over the years is that it hasn't been maintained as it should have been and was allowed to deteriorate. I am old enough to remember the days when double deck buses used to be able to use the bridge without issue. One has to ask how we have arrived in the state when the bridge has to be completely closed for fear of collapse, as was the case. The most obvious explanation is that the bridge wasn't maintained as it should have been and deteriorated. Here again comes in the question of money, because it is an expensive bridge to fully maintain. Arguably if the bridge had been fully maintained we would still have double deck buses on it today. Certainly Hammersmith Bridge can be restored to allow double deck buses, not just single deck buses, but that would cost even more. Whatever is decided the question of ongoing maintenance needs to be addressed to ensure the bridge is never allowed to deteriorate in such a way again. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 23, 2022 5:28:10 GMT
What needs to happen is that Hammersmith Bridge needs to be pedestrianised and new stronger bridge needs to be built needs to be built next to it. Sadly that costs money too. To my mind the real problem with Hammersmith Bridge over the years is that it hasn't been maintained as it should have been and was allowed to deteriorate. I am old enough to remember the days when double deck buses used to be able to use the bridge without issue. One has to ask how we have arrived in the state when the bridge has to be completely closed for fear of collapse, as was the case. The most obvious explanation is that the bridge wasn't maintained as it should have been and deteriorated. Here again comes in the question of money, because it is an expensive bridge to fully maintain. Arguably if the bridge had been fully maintained we would still have double deck buses on it today. Certainly Hammersmith Bridge can be restored to allow double deck buses, not just single deck buses, but that would cost even more. Whatever is decided the question of ongoing maintenance needs to be addressed to ensure the bridge is never allowed to deteriorate in such a way again. Iv never really know what in the past it was that caused the weight issues. Was it cracks in the predetsal, the bearings, the decking (which looked like a patchwork quilt with so many bodge jobs done to it) that suddenly caused concern in 1992 resulting in the DD ban? There was damage to the bearings on the Barnes side in 1984 caused by an HGV but obviously that was repaired as the bridge carried 1 RM and 2 Ms routes for another 8 years. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Dec 24, 2022 6:01:22 GMT
Sorry to reopen the thread with no real news but I was reading up the current status of the bridge recently. By Feb 2023 the strengthening works will be complete which have involved pouring a low carbon, specially worked out consistency to accurately fill up the pedestals. Later they will be reinforced with steel. After that more exciting hopefully will be plans are well advanced to go ahead with the temporary double deck bridge inserted across the current bridge. Reason I'm saying exciting is that we could just be looking at in 12 to 18 months single deck buses crossing it again if the temporary structure goes ahead. Seeing the 72 restored to its former glory of rammed buses flying down Roehampton Lane would be so satisfying - these days it’s more like a 220 suffix variant I don't so much miss route 72 terminating in Roehampton. I miss it terminating in Tolworth.  |
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Jan 18, 2024 22:45:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 18, 2024 22:58:31 GMT
Sarah Olney makes a very good point that the DfT are the only authority in this equation that have access to the amount of money required to repair the bridge, especially with costs spiralling. Of course the Tories use the resulting dithering from DfT to blame their political opponents in H&F and TFL. It's one thing to manage a bridge, it's another thing to manage a bridge that has been mechanically challenging for decades that a local authority budget clearly can't fix. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jan 18, 2024 23:12:59 GMT
Sarah Olney makes a very good point that the DfT are the only authority in this equation that have access to the amount of money required to repair the bridge, especially with costs spiralling. Of course the Tories use the resulting dithering from DfT to blame their political opponents in H&F and TFL. It's one thing to manage a bridge, it's another thing to manage a bridge that has been mechanically challenging for decades that a local authority budget clearly can't fix. But why should the DfT fund something that only benefits a small number and why should H&F be absolved of any responsibility? Providing millions of pounds won’t change the fact that H&F council has failed in its responsibility to properly maintain the bridge. Neighbouring Wandsworth has been able to properly maintain its bridges. The bridge has been failing for years but instead of implementing a proper plan H&F pretty much ignored the issues and continued maintaining a minimal inspection schedule even going as far as to cut the budget. As far as I am concerned H&F are fully responsible for this fiasco and should be held financially liable for at least 1/3. |
|
|
|
Post by Dad91 on Jan 19, 2024 17:29:08 GMT
When Hammersmith bridge reopens would 72 and 33 go back to normal to routing remember 72 had PVR 28 dropped heavy PVR 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 19, 2024 19:25:33 GMT
When Hammersmith bridge reopens would 72 and 33 go back to normal to routing remember 72 had PVR 28 dropped heavy PVR 10. Most likely. 209 aswell. Personally in time I'd like to see the 378 and 485 merged into a permanent Wandsworth to Mortlake route |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jan 19, 2024 19:31:02 GMT
When Hammersmith bridge reopens would 72 and 33 go back to normal to routing remember 72 had PVR 28 dropped heavy PVR 10. Most likely. 209 aswell. Personally in time I'd like to see the 378 and 485 merged into a permanent Wandsworth to Mortlake route I’m not sure they will. If the bridge reopens I don’t expect TfL to run anywhere near as many routes as they did before. They need 1-2 key routes only. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 19, 2024 19:43:36 GMT
Most likely. 209 aswell. Personally in time I'd like to see the 378 and 485 merged into a permanent Wandsworth to Mortlake route I’m not sure they will. If the bridge reopens I don’t expect TfL to run anywhere near as many routes as they did before. They need 1-2 key routes only. I think the 33, 72 and 209 would be essential but the 419 and 485 possibly not so now. I definitely don't think the 283 aswell would return. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 19, 2024 20:01:38 GMT
Sarah Olney makes a very good point that the DfT are the only authority in this equation that have access to the amount of money required to repair the bridge, especially with costs spiralling. Of course the Tories use the resulting dithering from DfT to blame their political opponents in H&F and TFL. It's one thing to manage a bridge, it's another thing to manage a bridge that has been mechanically challenging for decades that a local authority budget clearly can't fix. But why should the DfT fund something that only benefits a small number and why should H&F be absolved of any responsibility? Providing millions of pounds won’t change the fact that H&F council has failed in its responsibility to properly maintain the bridge. Neighbouring Wandsworth has been able to properly maintain its bridges. The bridge has been failing for years but instead of implementing a proper plan H&F pretty much ignored the issues and continued maintaining a minimal inspection schedule even going as far as to cut the budget. As far as I am concerned H&F are fully responsible for this fiasco and should be held financially liable for at least 1/3. Sometimes it is a case of 'needs must'. Key infrastructure such as bridges will often only benefit the locality yet may need national funding. It is just that such key infrastructure should be across should be across the whole country. If Hammersmith bridge were in the North would we be saying the same thing? Very sadly Hammersmith bridge has got into the situation that it really needs central government funding to repair. H&F should not be absolved of responsibility though, they should certainly contribute and those who were in power and failed to maintain the bridge need to also be held to account. In principle I am not adverse to a toll when it re-opens to pay for it, however the problem with such tolls in this country is that the toll is not scrapped once the repairs are paid for, rather there is always some excuse to keep it and that is what makes such tolls unacceptable in my eyes. I appreciate Hammersmith bridge is a Grade II listed structure, but is it such an important structure to keep? May demolish it and put up another bridge which can handle the necessary weights and is low maintenance might be a better bet. It might be quicker and cheaper as well! If Hammersmith bridge is so important then move it elsewhere! If Hammersmith bridge is so important to keep where it is then let's just get on and deliver the funding and repairs needed, it has already been closed for too long. |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Jan 19, 2024 20:05:58 GMT
Is the outrageous cost of doing anything justified at all anymore? Time has passed and people have settled proving the world wasn't going to end without the bridge. I can very much see this being the end of the line
|
|
