|
Post by snowman on Feb 26, 2020 15:48:51 GMT
I can understand the confusion as the info given out has always been conflicting and confusing. I'm still no wiser. So £120m is now not going to be spent or it will be spent but still wont be able to accommodate DDs? If its not strong enough for DDs (and potentially still restricted to 1 bus at a time)and a patch up job is done again (for £25m) I wouldnt really say the statement that it will be fit for the 21st century is really accurate. The key stakeholders - which include TfL, Richmond and Hammersmith & Fulham councils, and English Heritage - have agreed to spend £120m to repair and refurbish the bridge. The agreed-upon plan was 'Option B' of three options considered; the most expensive, Option C, would have cost £150m and would have strengthened the bridge to accommodate heavier vehicles such as double deckers. The various parties were either unable or unwilling to approve the additional £30m required for that option. The wording of the joint announcement made last year, which included details of all three options, made it clear that Option B is intended only to support 'heavier electric single deckers' (or words to that effect), firmly ruling out electric double deckers. However, while the stakeholders have, in principle, agreed to fund Option B, they have not yet finalised the exact breakdown of how much (or what proportion) of the £120m bill will be paid by each of them. To ensure that essential emergency repair works could proceed, TfL has already put up £25m towards the total cost; a large chunk of this will already have gone to the first-stage contractors, industrial engineering firm Kier, who are handling the critical repair works, along with preliminary tasks to prepare the bridge and works site for the main contractor (who has not yet been selected). I believe the plan is for a main contractor (who will handle the full three-year deep-repair and refurbishment of the bridge) to be selected in late spring, so I would expect the stakeholders to have finalised their funding arrangements for the project sometime before then. There is no timeline in place for the proposed temporary foot/cycle bridge, as the funding it requires has not yet been finalised. At the moment the repairs are only part funded, so in theory could start the work, then it grind to a halt if money runs out. There has been lot of behind the scenes squabbling regarding who should pay. Suggestions that TfL turned blind eye to the weight restriction and bus exemption (so it is responsible), other suggestions the bearings weren't oiled and greased whilst in H&F ownership (thus allowing them to seize and fail) etc
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 26, 2020 20:12:08 GMT
So sadly we could see the bridge closed again in 10 years time if the refurbishment stops at the 25m tfl are putting up to get it re opened.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 26, 2020 20:20:37 GMT
What's happening to the temporary Hammersmith bridge? It requires planning permission, the application is being prepared by TfL.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 26, 2020 22:46:15 GMT
I can understand the confusion as the info given out has always been conflicting and confusing. I'm still no wiser. So £120m is now not going to be spent or it will be spent but still wont be able to accommodate DDs? If its not strong enough for DDs (and potentially still restricted to 1 bus at a time)and a patch up job is done again (for £25m) I wouldnt really say the statement that it will be fit for the 21st century is really accurate. The key stakeholders - which include TfL, Richmond and Hammersmith & Fulham councils, and English Heritage - have agreed to spend £120m to repair and refurbish the bridge. The agreed-upon plan was 'Option B' of three options considered; the most expensive, Option C, would have cost £150m and would have strengthened the bridge to accommodate heavier vehicles such as double deckers. The various parties were either unable or unwilling to approve the additional £30m required for that option. The wording of the joint announcement made last year, which included details of all three options, made it clear that Option B is intended only to support 'heavier electric single deckers' (or words to that effect), firmly ruling out electric double deckers. However, while the stakeholders have, in principle, agreed to fund Option B, they have not yet finalised the exact breakdown of how much (or what proportion) of the £120m bill will be paid by each of them. To ensure that essential emergency repair works could proceed, TfL has already put up £25m towards the total cost; a large chunk of this will already have gone to the first-stage contractors, industrial engineering firm Kier, who are handling the critical repair works, along with preliminary tasks to prepare the bridge and works site for the main contractor (who has not yet been selected). I believe the plan is for a main contractor (who will handle the full three-year deep-repair and refurbishment of the bridge) to be selected in late spring, so I would expect the stakeholders to have finalised their funding arrangements for the project sometime before then. There is no timeline in place for the proposed temporary foot/cycle bridge, as the funding it requires has not yet been finalised. Another example of short term-ism and another example of screwing over a very busy corridor by plonking them back into overcrowded single deckers if it gets finished.
|
|
|
Post by george on Feb 26, 2020 22:59:35 GMT
The key stakeholders - which include TfL, Richmond and Hammersmith & Fulham councils, and English Heritage - have agreed to spend £120m to repair and refurbish the bridge. The agreed-upon plan was 'Option B' of three options considered; the most expensive, Option C, would have cost £150m and would have strengthened the bridge to accommodate heavier vehicles such as double deckers. The various parties were either unable or unwilling to approve the additional £30m required for that option. The wording of the joint announcement made last year, which included details of all three options, made it clear that Option B is intended only to support 'heavier electric single deckers' (or words to that effect), firmly ruling out electric double deckers. However, while the stakeholders have, in principle, agreed to fund Option B, they have not yet finalised the exact breakdown of how much (or what proportion) of the £120m bill will be paid by each of them. To ensure that essential emergency repair works could proceed, TfL has already put up £25m towards the total cost; a large chunk of this will already have gone to the first-stage contractors, industrial engineering firm Kier, who are handling the critical repair works, along with preliminary tasks to prepare the bridge and works site for the main contractor (who has not yet been selected). I believe the plan is for a main contractor (who will handle the full three-year deep-repair and refurbishment of the bridge) to be selected in late spring, so I would expect the stakeholders to have finalised their funding arrangements for the project sometime before then. There is no timeline in place for the proposed temporary foot/cycle bridge, as the funding it requires has not yet been finalised. Another example of short term-ism and another example of screwing over a very busy corridor by plonking them back into overcrowded single deckers if it gets finished. It's a real shame no doubt TfL will put a clever spin in their press realise saying "Brand new Electric Single Decker buses go over the newly refurbished Hammersmith Bride" when we all know when it reopens most single deckers will be electric anyway. The press realise really should be "Brand new Electric Double Decker buses go over the newly refurbished Hammersmith Bridge"
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 26, 2020 23:11:45 GMT
The key stakeholders - which include TfL, Richmond and Hammersmith & Fulham councils, and English Heritage - have agreed to spend £120m to repair and refurbish the bridge. The agreed-upon plan was 'Option B' of three options considered; the most expensive, Option C, would have cost £150m and would have strengthened the bridge to accommodate heavier vehicles such as double deckers. The various parties were either unable or unwilling to approve the additional £30m required for that option. The wording of the joint announcement made last year, which included details of all three options, made it clear that Option B is intended only to support 'heavier electric single deckers' (or words to that effect), firmly ruling out electric double deckers. However, while the stakeholders have, in principle, agreed to fund Option B, they have not yet finalised the exact breakdown of how much (or what proportion) of the £120m bill will be paid by each of them. To ensure that essential emergency repair works could proceed, TfL has already put up £25m towards the total cost; a large chunk of this will already have gone to the first-stage contractors, industrial engineering firm Kier, who are handling the critical repair works, along with preliminary tasks to prepare the bridge and works site for the main contractor (who has not yet been selected). I believe the plan is for a main contractor (who will handle the full three-year deep-repair and refurbishment of the bridge) to be selected in late spring, so I would expect the stakeholders to have finalised their funding arrangements for the project sometime before then. There is no timeline in place for the proposed temporary foot/cycle bridge, as the funding it requires has not yet been finalised. Another example of short term-ism and another example of screwing over a very busy corridor by plonking them back into overcrowded single deckers if it gets finished. Precisely. Should really have a full refurbishment to make it as good as any other bridge. Will probably survive longer in the long term if that happens aswell
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 27, 2020 6:57:16 GMT
Another example of short term-ism and another example of screwing over a very busy corridor by plonking them back into overcrowded single deckers if it gets finished. Precisely. Should really have a full refurbishment to make it as good as any other bridge. Will probably survive longer in the long term if that happens aswell Well if anyone wants to start up a crowd funding page for an additional £30m? I think most people will just be glad to see the bridge reopened and a lower weight limit also keeps heavy lorries out of the area.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Feb 27, 2020 10:31:55 GMT
Precisely. Should really have a full refurbishment to make it as good as any other bridge. Will probably survive longer in the long term if that happens aswell Well if anyone wants to start up a crowd funding page for an additional £30m? I think most people will just be glad to see the bridge reopened and a lower weight limit also keeps heavy lorries out of the area. But doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the bridge renovation in the first place? Why renovate a bridge only for the end result to be the same as it was previously i.e. still have a weight restriction? I personally don't believe accommodating 'heavier' electric SDs was the intention at all, just upon realising that it would cost much more than anticipated to accommodate Double Decks/heavy vehicles that the cheaper option was chosen and now the public will have to deal with overcrowded buses on routes that really need Double Decks, on top of the ridiculously long wait for the bridge to reopen.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 27, 2020 10:40:50 GMT
Well if anyone wants to start up a crowd funding page for an additional £30m? I think most people will just be glad to see the bridge reopened and a lower weight limit also keeps heavy lorries out of the area. But doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the bridge renovation in the first place? Why renovate a bridge only for the end result to be the same as it was previously i.e. still have a weight restriction? I personally don't believe accommodating 'heavier' electric SDs was the intention at all, just upon realising that it would cost much more than anticipated to accommodate Double Decks/heavy vehicles that the cheaper option was chosen and now the public will have to deal with overcrowded buses on routes that really need Double Decks, on top of the ridiculously long wait for the bridge to reopen. The renovation is to get the bridge reopened again and £30m sounds like a lot of money just to enable double deckers to be used. There are a lot of short distance passengers to and from Hammersmith many of whom probably wouldn't bother going upstairs anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 27, 2020 11:23:02 GMT
But doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the bridge renovation in the first place? Why renovate a bridge only for the end result to be the same as it was previously i.e. still have a weight restriction? I personally don't believe accommodating 'heavier' electric SDs was the intention at all, just upon realising that it would cost much more than anticipated to accommodate Double Decks/heavy vehicles that the cheaper option was chosen and now the public will have to deal with overcrowded buses on routes that really need Double Decks, on top of the ridiculously long wait for the bridge to reopen. The renovation is to get the bridge reopened again and £30m sounds like a lot of money just to enable double deckers to be used. There are a lot of short distance passengers to and from Hammersmith many of whom probably wouldn't bother going upstairs anyway. I don't think the issue is specifically using single deckers, the issue is more so that the fix will just be a bodge job and will no doubt start degrading over time once again.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 27, 2020 11:29:45 GMT
The renovation is to get the bridge reopened again and £30m sounds like a lot of money just to enable double deckers to be used. There are a lot of short distance passengers to and from Hammersmith many of whom probably wouldn't bother going upstairs anyway. I don't think the issue is specifically using single deckers, the issue is more so that the fix will just be a bodge job and will no doubt start degrading over time once again. I'm not an engineer or anything but is there any reason to think it will be a bodge job? I would have thought a lower weight limit would prolong the life of the bridge if anything?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 27, 2020 12:34:24 GMT
I don't think the issue is specifically using single deckers, the issue is more so that the fix will just be a bodge job and will no doubt start degrading over time once again. I'm not an engineer or anything but is there any reason to think it will be a bodge job? I would have thought a lower weight limit would prolong the life of the bridge if anything? The weight limit was introduced in the 90's and we're now in 2020 so it only prolonged it by roughly 20 years - in this time, vehicles have become much heavier so can't see it lasting long before we sit here scrabbling more money together. Look at Albert Bridge, it only survives because it's heavily restricted to traffic and is patched constantly rather than a proper full on repair.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 27, 2020 12:37:14 GMT
I'm not an engineer or anything but is there any reason to think it will be a bodge job? I would have thought a lower weight limit would prolong the life of the bridge if anything? The weight limit was introduced in the 90's and we're now in 2020 so it only prolonged it by roughly 20 years - in this time, vehicles have become much heavier so can't see it lasting long before we sit here scrabbling more money together. Look at Albert Bridge, it only survives because it's heavily restricted to traffic and is patched constantly rather than a proper full on repair. Who is to say the bridge when repaired will be in a lot better condition than in the 90s making any comparison groundless.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 27, 2020 12:38:46 GMT
The weight limit was introduced in the 90's and we're now in 2020 so it only prolonged it by roughly 20 years - in this time, vehicles have become much heavier so can't see it lasting long before we sit here scrabbling more money together. Look at Albert Bridge, it only survives because it's heavily restricted to traffic and is patched constantly rather than a proper full on repair. Who is to say the bridge when repaired will be in a lot better condition than in the 90s making any comparison groundless. Let's hope so - sadly I'm unconvinced hence my scepticism.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 27, 2020 14:11:35 GMT
I share the same feelings. A refurb to get it back to being restricted to 1 SD at any time doesn't suggest it will last long before needing further work. Hopefully I'm wrong.
It was actually the late 90s that major work was done (I believe it was closed in 1998-99) so 20 years to have deteriorated to this stage and that's ignoring a large amount of weekend closures in 2014 plus other times. Each time it costs to do these mini works.
|
|