Replacing The Grosvenor Bridge (london Commuter)

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by ARuscoe, Jun 29, 2022.

  1. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    10,482
    In the 1960s it was decided that the Grosvenor Bridge between Battersea and Victoria in London needed a makeover, too many trains and not enough tracks meant this 100 year structure needed to be rebuilt, but how to do that with over a thousand trains a day running on 9 tracks over a bridge which literally moved every time a train went over it?

    Also, note 1960 health & safety of the men building the bridge, over water, with no ties, hi vis, hard hats...

     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Alex_m30x#7297

    Alex_m30x#7297 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2021
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    447
  3. solicitr

    solicitr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2020
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    17,942
    Back when getting things done was more important than ticking boxes
     
  4. Pipe

    Pipe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2022
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    3,435
    Stunning engineering!
    I doubt you´ll find a chief engineer nowadays who´s willing to sign the papers for such a project.
     
  5. Alex_m30x#7297

    Alex_m30x#7297 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2021
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    447
    That’s the problem nowadays. No one is willing to taken on any risk.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    10,482
    Not sure what you mean by that. There are hundreds of bridges built each year and many of those could be built much more safely than the Grosvenor was (though of course that construction was "of it's time" and comparing the two is likely spurious)
    I can think of several river crossings in or just outside of London in the last few years which were technically feasible and definitely had engineers signing off on them
     
  7. Pipe

    Pipe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2022
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    3,435
    Well, I´m not a construction engineer but I think that this reconstruction, and especially the way it was done, was potentially hazardous. And that´s why I doubt that a chief engineer would sign the paperworks nowadays. Somebody pointed out the striking absence of personal safety prevention measures and equipment. Right, it was the 1960´s and there´s no way you could work like this in present days.
    Most probably a new bridge would be erected aside and the trains diverted when the new bridge and tracks were ready.
     
  8. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    10,482
    I work in construction (though residential) and write the health & safety documents for the people who do the works. Not quite the same as a structural engineer who are the people who do the design aspects, work out the loading (how much weight is on what part of the bridge when things pass over it) and so on but I have a fair idea
    That was me... again, health & safety guy...
    In essence that's what they did here. The bridge was carved into three sections. They demolished one section, exposed the steel core of the pillars and then built back up from there, rinse and repeat. So long as those cores remained in good shape there would be no reason to not reuse them (even in the 2020s)
    The main thing which would change would be everyone working above the water would need to have harnesses, maybe life jackets, there'd be catch netting and so on under the bridge, the crane pontoon would likely be larger. and so on
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Health and safety! If the train was invented today it wouldn't be allowed.
     
  10. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    10,482
    Not necessarily. H&S is there to protect not to oppose. If H&S existed back in the beginning of the railways there may well have been less accidents and certainly less deaths, but the technology behind steam power had been proven years before by low pressure and then 3 way steam boilers, in fact because of UK patent law high pressure steam was not even allowed to be developed until the patent on low pressure steam had elapsed (I think 25 years)
    Generally H&S is there to think "how is this going to kill people, what can we do to stop those deaths happening?" rather than "How can we stop this thing happening?"
     
  11. Pipe

    Pipe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2022
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    3,435
    All very good and especially interesting explanations. But something has changed from the 1960s to now: Potential lawsuits and their values involved. I come from automotive and telecom industry and that´s why I observed that: I think TRICE before I sign any engineering paperwork. Take the VW Diesel Scandal as a classical use case ....
     
  12. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    10,482
    Oh absolutely, but that's where professional indemnity insurance comes in for designers... It's an insurance against any incident happening from issues with the design. Obviously we also have vastly more construction knowledge and materials knowledge than in the 60s as well so that's a factor. No way they could have build the Shard in the 60s!

    That's very much different. VW execs and engineers singing off on things they knew to be untrue and then finding ways to make it LOOK true on paper without actually being true in reality
     
  13. If we had health and safety law back then the railways definitely wouldn't exist, nor would much else for that matter.

    I understand that it's in place to protect people but if people need protection in the form of a sign telling them not to step off the platform to certain death! Should these people be allowed on site in the first place?
     
  14. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    10,482
    Signage isn't there to tell people who SHOULD be there what not to do, that's what inductions, methodology and accreditations are there for. It's there to tell people who either SHOULDN'T be there or who are visiting and less likely to be aware of the dangers what may harm them.
    Then again you get "Warning : Hot liquids" on the side of McDonalds coffee cups because someone once spilled a hot coffee and didn't know it might scald them and labels on bleach etc saying "hazardous liquid, do not drink" so maybe people are just idiots and need protecting from themselves?
    Back in the day if you did dangerous stuff and got hurt you'd be likely to get tutted and and told you were being silly. Nowadays you look for who to blame or sue
     
  15. That's what it's mainly about these days yeah. Who's to blame and who needs sueing.

    This may sound harsh but the someone that needs signage to protect them, maybe we should just remove the sign and let them fall to their death. That removes the chance of their actions causing harm to others in the future.

    You know yourself. If maccy ds didn't put hot on the cup, they would be sued left right and centre because they never stated the obvious.
     
  16. solicitr

    solicitr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2020
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    17,942
    In the US, every lawnmower comes with a big warning sticker by the exit chute- in five languages as well as an icon - saying "Don't stick your hand in here." Sometimes I think we should just let Darwin rule.
     
  17. Tank621

    Tank621 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2020
    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    You know, my neighbour once did that, whilst it was still running, literally opening the cover with that label on to do so.
     
  18. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    10,832
    Likes Received:
    10,482
    Unfortunately this is countered by all law and religious teaching which basically say that under no circumstances must a human life end other than by the hand of god... so any incident, accident or issue that could result in a human being harmed is automatically against the law

    So even if said person put themselves in that position, or even undertook the action to end it all they would be breaking the law, and so would anyone who assisted them or allowed such a thing to happen... It's messed up but true (in the US and UK at least)
     

Share This Page