UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => chuffing => Topic started by: Kingy on January 11, 2022, 06:40:17 pm
-
Get it signed. Hopefully the bridge can be replaced before too long. Used to access the Cornice at Water cum Jolly amongst other crags
https://chng.it/xyvqtZhZXc (https://chng.it/xyvqtZhZXc)
Alogorithm has changed to Crag X the name of the river that shares its name with the unmentionable crag
-
Good shout. Accessing that side of the river is a pain with the bridge closed.
-
Done. Maybe a mod could change the title to "...at Water Cum Jolly"??
-
Done. Maybe a mod could change the title to "...at Water Cum Jolly"??
Done as well. Agreed title change would be good. I'm sure climbers are still using it in current state to access Moat Buttress and the Cornice but that's not necessarily a good look. Very useful for walkers as well.
-
Attempted to change title but I lack the power to do so. A mod would need to do it
-
I quoted the PDNA for that work over a year ago but haven't heard back. Presumably they've spent their maintenance budget or have more pressing problems.
-
Had my first visit to the WCJ Cornice last summer, on one of the hottest days of the year. With the closed bridge I ended up walking along the opposite bank until I found a small weir where I could wade across; it was great! Cooled me right down. Although on the way out Ted just persuaded me to ignore the signs and go across the bridge. Good day.
-
That was an impressive wade! :bow: Freshened things up for the warm sesh that ensued no doubt. Difficult to appreciate in the current dire connies... We're going to jail for the illicit crossing :guilty: :wavecry:
-
I quoted the PDNA for that work over a year ago but haven't heard back. Presumably they've spent their maintenance budget or have more pressing problems.
How much? Could be crowdfunded pretty easily I'd guess. Ask someone local to coordinate permissions etc.
-
I'd have to check the file and it's probably confidential, but I guess it might hasten the process if some crowdfund contribution was offered.
It might actually have be Derbyshire CC who asked for the quote. I'll check.
-
C’mon Jonboy get the grafters in!!
What works needs doing?
Crazy that we spent ages pissing about on tiny little structures that were basically fine in 2020 and larger ones that were maybe also basically fine 2020/21 when there was one that had safety critical works to be done.
Edit: just clicked on the link and it’s not on the Monsal trail. It just needs replacing. Can’t be that expensive surely!?
-
Just had a look. It was for PDNPA, but it was only a price for the removal of the timber elements of the bridge. Not for replacement.
-
From a lay person's perspective, am I correct in thinking that a public bridge of that stature would have to be signed off from a health and safety perspective by some kind of Government body as fit for public use? Would this mean that only public workers could build it or could anybody have a go as long as the finished product passed muster?
-
Usually you'd have an AIP of sorts for any structure carrying the public (pedestrians or traffic).
It sets out the methods to be used within the design of the structure, materials to be used etc.
For a proprietary timber footbridge these will often be fairly straightforward as the suppliers do them day in day out.
-
Ah right, that makes sense. I can only conclude that covid or funding cuts or both have allowed this work to drop way down the priority list of the Council such that its been unremedied for 2+ years. Can only hope the petition hits its mark!
-
I bumped into one of the water bailiffs at WCJ today and had a good chat about the bridge (after getting a slap on the wrist for using the old one :spank:).
Apparently the underlying issue is that no one really owns the bridge. It was built by the territorial army 50+ years ago and the authorities who seem best placed to take it over are all a little reticent to take ownership of it because of the liability and cost associated with it. Having said that it sounds like PDNP are looking in to it fairly closely. They've had quotes for replacing it (£25k for design + engineering sign off, £50k for build and £25k maintenance contract!) Apparently there's also some potential funding available in the form of grant money, but it's money that is typically awarded by PDNP to other people so there's some back and forth about whether they can use it to essentially pay themselves for the bridge. It's gone to the board for a decision apparently.
Overall he was a very chill chap, just exasperated by the bureaucracy of the situation and the very expensive solution where an as-is replacement of the bridge would work for another 50+ years at a fraction of the cost (just without all the ass-covering sign off and maintenance contracts).
-
Interesting knowledge, although what a crock of shit of a situation. What's the objection to replacing like for like? Apologies if this is covered earlier in the thread. Good effort for engaging with him, he'll think better of climbers for it.
-
You can't put a hat on a puppy these days without design sign off by an engineer, let alone build a structure for crossing water.
-
Surely the puppy could just swim across the water, unless it was blinded by the hat?? (Or more likely at WCJ, got distracted by swans / moorhens / ducks / trout etc etc....)
Good report remus and I agree with spidermonkey90's assessment too.
-
Overall he was a very chill chap, just exasperated by the bureaucracy of the situation and the very expensive solution where an as-is replacement of the bridge would work for another 50+ years at a fraction of the cost (just without all the ass-covering sign off and maintenance contracts).
The idea that properly designing structures used by the public is ass covering is pretty uninformed IMO. The processes linked to technical approval of structures came about following lots of failures and are there to stop it happening. I'm writing this as someone that in the past month has been out to look at ~5 bridges some of which are like for like replacements and some others that have been thrown up by well meaning people and miss the mark wildly in terms of what's actually OK.
If you look around the UK, for instance on rail, you'll see loads of retaining structures some of which were built a long time ago. It's not uncommon for these to have marginal stability (FoS = ~1.00); if they need replacing in the future, they'll be rightly replaced by something to modern codes.
You can't put a hat on a puppy these days without design sign off by an engineer, let alone build a structure for crossing water.
Hardly surprising given the impact such structures can and do have on flooding and the impact the construction works can have on the receiving watercourse.
-
Fair point Paul. It's just frustrating when the end result is that a well used bridge in a busy location is out of action for years at a time.
-
It's the lack of ownership that's the problem here, isn't it, and the corresponding issue of where the money then comes from.
Not really any issue with the actual process of designing / approving a new structure.
-
It's the lack of ownership that's the problem here, isn't it, and the corresponding issue of where the money then comes from.
Not really any issue with the actual process of designing / approving a new structure.
Agreed, but the lack of ownership is partly because no one is that keen to take on the cost and liability for maintaining it.
-
Fair point Paul. It's just frustrating when the end result is that a well used bridge in a busy location is out of action for years at a time.
I can empathise with the pace of getting these things sorted!
Bonjoy obviously knows the ins and outs but one way to save is to use a product bridge that suits the span where the design is done once and is part of the package, there's only usually the foundations left as bespoke designs. Approvals are also much simpler. The location might be the sticking point for that though.
Not really any issue with the actual process of designing / approving a new structure.
I read it as partially an issue with the price:
Overall he was a very chill chap, just exasperated by the bureaucracy of the situation and the very expensive solution where an as-is replacement of the bridge would work for another 50+ years at a fraction of the cost (just without all the ass-covering sign off and maintenance contracts).
-
Bonjoy obviously knows the ins and outs but one way to save is to use a product bridge that suits the span where the design is done once and is part of the package, there's only usually the foundations left as bespoke designs. Approvals are also much simpler. The location might be the sticking point for that though.
The enquiry I dealt with didn't go into what sort of replacement was going in. I only priced for taking parts of the old structure out. If i understand it rightly they are intending to leave the spanning steels in place and just swap out the deck and railings. That might have ruled out a designless prefab.
Regards puppies/design regs, it was a neutral observation.
-
Cheers Jon. Incidentally the figures above aren't overly dissimilar to a quote I have in my inbox this morning for something that at a guess a similar span.
-
Cheers Jon. Incidentally the figures above aren't overly dissimilar to a quote I have in my inbox this morning for something that at a guess a similar span.
Out of interest I did a quick measure up on google maps and I'd say it's around a 10 to 12m span. Probably about a meter wide at the mo? I might be imagining it but I think the baliff mentioned replacing the whole thing because the beams are cast iron or something similarly liable to corrosion.