Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 9th January 2009

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Corrosion in Forth bridge cables not as bad as feared, say engineers



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 June 2008
A THREATENED cross-Forth lorry ban has been averted following new checks on the Forth Road Bridge's main cable corrosion, The Scotsman has learned.
A predicted lorry ban as early as 2013 because of the weakening cable is now expected to be put back to nearer 2020.

That means lorries would be able to switch in time to the planned replacement bridge, which should be complete in 2016, even if w
ork to halt the corrosion fails.

A report into the latest inspection of the 2ft-thick cable, due to be published today, is understood to show "positive" findings.

These have enabled engineers to predict the cable's remaining lifespan with much more accuracy than before.

This is because they have been able to compare the results of February's cable inspection with those from 2004 – the only previous time it has been checked.

Following the 2004 check, experts estimated a lorry ban might have to be imposed some time between 2013 and 2020 if the corrosion was not halted. Closure of the bridge to all vehicles could follow as early as 2019.

The new results are expected to show the corroded cables still threaten the bridge's long-term future, but they effectively provide a greater breathing space.

The Scottish Government has given the go-ahead to a replacement bridge just west of the crossing, costing up to £4.2 billion, because of the threat.

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority has started to blow air into the cable in an attempt to halt the corrosion, caused by water seeping inside.

However, it will not be known for another three years whether this has been successful.

The latest inspection of the cable involved unwrapping its cover to check the 11,618 pencil-thin wires inside. The worst-corroded section found in 2004 was selected for the check.

Corrosion and wire breaks in the cable have already cut the bridge's strength by 8 to 10 per cent, and a further 10 per cent loss would force a lorry ban.

Business leaders were last night keeping their fingers crossed.

Ron Hewitt, the chief executive of Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, said: "Business would welcome any lengthening of the life of the existing bridge, as current projections have threatened that a new crossing would not be ready before long vehicles would have to be banned.

"Early closure does not bear contemplating and so we hope the results will prove optimistic."

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The Scottish Government will not know if the dehumidification work on the cables has worked until 2011.

"The year 2011 would be impossibly late to start the work which will protect cross-Forth travel, and the compelling case for proceeding with the Forth road crossing remains."



The full article contains 465 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 June 2008 12:40 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

danielrober,

18/06/2008 01:12:31
I have spent some time now looking at the first proposals for this crossing and two points are clear. First this bridge was always intended to be rewired. Rewiring will buy decades not just few years. Secondly that schemes such as a tunnel or the causeway scheme would now work using todays techology.

As such i no longer belive that this is about engineering or infrasture. This is just about politics. Alex.S will prove to Scotland and the world that he is better than Gordon.B. Pure ego, this money could be spent on so may other pojects.
2

Man of Reason,

18/06/2008 07:01:24
Let's hope this is true - good news if so
3

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 07:49:42
There should still be no delay in starting 2nd bridge,required for Fife and East Coast economy despite Governments decision to approve spending on trams. A9 and A1 upgrades required to save lives too.

Scotland requires an upgraded road infrastructure.
4

Whoppitt,

18/06/2008 07:53:11
Anyone else see the irony in the railway bridge lasting 120 years and still going strong, and the road bridge predicted to last 50?

5

Jehovah,

18/06/2008 09:03:39
#3 I agree - work on the new crossing should proceed without delay.

The BBC are reporting that the predicted date for a lorry ban has now been moved back to 2017 - this means that the new bridge might now just be ready in time, rather than the previous nightmare scenario of an overlap period when there is no crossing for HGVs. By no means does this remove the urgency for a new crossing.

In any case, the frequent delays this winter when the bridge had to be closed because of accidents, maintenance and high winds should have made it clear that we need an alternative crossing in place whatever happens - corrosion or no corrosion.
6

Guga II,

Rockall 18/06/2008 09:13:21
Good. This gives them a bit more time to work it out that the obvious thing to do is have a tunnel rather than another road bridge.
7

Paul R,

18/06/2008 09:36:38
#4 - the railway bridge was built in an era before computers which could calculate loads etc so was substantially overengineered because they couldn't work out how strong it needed to be so easily. If the road bridge was built to the same standard not only would it have cost more to build but we would now have the problem of it not meeting capacity but still being physically sound - meaning no new crossing would be built. At least with a new bridge we will get a bridge which can cope with the current traffic levels.
8

geekpie,

forfar 18/06/2008 10:22:04
Tolls should be re-introduced now, not only as a small contribution to the cost of the new bridge, but also as acknowledgement that car-commuting from Fife is NOT a sensible lifestyle choice.
9

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 10:29:40
4 Whoppit
Towards the end of World War 2 General Patten took delight in sending US army tanks over bridges that had been built by the Romans almost 2000 years earlier. So a bridge built by the Romans can take heavy vehicles 2000 years later while a modern bridge can only do so for approx. 50 years. It is perhaps a pity that Romans didn't spend more time in Scotland. They might have done the job for us.
10

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 10:44:07
7 Paul R
The road bridge was completed in 1964 and obviously designed many years before that - sometime in the fifties. I may be wrong but I doubt if computers featured in bridge design in the fifties.

Overengineered is something of a relative term. The road bridge would have been designed with a view to meeting forecast loads with a safety margin then added. Problems often occur when the forecast proves to be inaccurate and the subseqent structure then struggles to cope. This has been one of the problems with the early motorways. There is then a large expense in remedial and repair work as with the road bridge. An "overengineered" structure is often cheaper in the long term - Gen Patten did not have to worry about remedial work on the Roman bridges taking his tanks.
11

D Napier,

18/06/2008 10:47:52
#1. Danielrober.

I am intrigued by your comment "First this bridge was always intended to be rewired."

Can you please provide some evidence for this statement.
12

danielrober,

18/06/2008 11:08:00
# 11 D Napier

Many of the original engineers are in fact dead. Equally many of the companies involved have either gone out of business or have so changed that their legacy is cultural (repespected) rather than physical.

However such a large project leaves many sources of inforamtion. As such i think i'll find the evidence within 24 months - if not the actual process route.

In the mean time let the governments Scot and UK, put forward an optional bid proposal to rewire the bridge. They will be flooded with offers and save billions. The release of funds could help upgrade the Inverness and Oban roads. As well as provide an extra new crossing upriver on the Fouth. This is real engineering, opening up huge parts of Scotland, rather than another political dream costing billions.
13

Jehovah,

18/06/2008 11:35:23
#9 Ugly George

The Romans were indeed good at building small to medium sized stone viaducts, but I'd be very surprised if you could show me a Roman bridge on a similar scale to the Forth Road Bridge (i.e. with a main span of over one kilometre!)
14

Neil,

Glasgow 18/06/2008 12:30:29
On Dec 21st I had a letter here mainly about how a Forth Tunnel, using Norwegian costings, could be built for 100th of the £4.2 billion a new bridge is costed at & inviting somebody "official" to say why it wasn't being done that way.

However I ended up with this:

"Anybody want to bet on whether, as soon as all the expensive contracts have been signed, we will be told that reroping can proceed apace?"

Seems Nostradamus had nothing on me.

Inexplicably "officialdom" has yet to even attempt to answer my question.
15

Neil,

Glasgow 18/06/2008 12:32:32
On Dec 21st I had a letter here mainly about how a Forth Tunnel, using Norwegian costings, could be built for 100th of the £4.2 billion a new bridge is costed at & inviting somebody "official" to say why it wasn't being done that way.

However I ended up with this:

"Anybody want to bet on whether, as soon as all the expensive contracts have been signed, we will be told that reroping can proceed apace?"

Seems Nostradamus had nothing on me.

Inexplicably "officialdom" has yet to even attempt to answer my question.
16

Neil,

Glasgow 18/06/2008 12:37:04
#8 the reason tolls will not be introduced is that it was possible to fund the original bridge from tolls on 1/10th of vcurrent traffic. The fact is it would be impossible to fund a new bridge on tolls because costs, even after inflation, have gone up 13 fold. Any introduction of tolls to provide partial funding would make it obvious how much the price has been artificailly pushed up by what the Scotsman, when referring to a much lesser discrepancy in Russia, described as "government waste & kickbacks".
17

Albawolf,

St Andrews 18/06/2008 13:22:51
Ahh.........................

WHAT a SURPRIZE..................

Where does this leave the editor of the Scotsman's judgement.

He or she rushed (and boy did they rush.......) to say we must have a new bridge/tunnel because (please fill in blank....)

Now out comes this.....

When will someone see that in terms of cost benifit lets roll out a decent transport system thru out the country.

I would say make the railways better by
- upgrade track to North, South, East and West
(not just in central Scotland)
- move to electric system thus getting rid of expensive oil

But don't waste the money on a second crossing......

18

Ugly George,

edinburgh 18/06/2008 13:26:06
13 Jehovah
The Roman bridge over the River Guadiana in Spain is nearly 800 metres long so it is not that far short of the Forth Road bridge. As far as single spans are concerned, is a single span bridge necessary? The rail bridge does not have a single span yet ships manage to sail under it to get in and out of Rosyth. The Romans have built bridges with spans up to 34 metres. Is this wide enought to allow the ships to pass through? I don't know off hand but if it is then I think that the Romans might have been able to do the job.
19

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 13:42:24
13 Jehovah
I have just checked. The width of the Titanic was under 30 metres. The Romans often built bridges and viaducts with arched spans on top of quite high vertical sides. It appears therefore that the Romans could have built a bridge under which the Titanic could have sailed. As I said, they may well have managed the job and if they had you can be sure that their structure would not currently require all the maintenance and repair that the present one does. The only problem might have been that they would not have forecast the volume of traffic so might have built it single carriageway.
20

Jehovah,

18/06/2008 14:04:19
19/19 Ugly George

Okay you've convinced me - let's get those Romans on the job!
21

Jehovah,

18/06/2008 14:05:00
...damn, no time machine!
22

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 18/06/2008 18:43:12
We'll all be poor as church mice if we waste £4 billion on a new bridge for expanding road haulage and car traffic when there is still life in the present structure. Aren't road hauliers bleeting about high diesel prices and aren't motorists buying 20% less fuel?

This suggests a 20% reduction in road traffic, this at a time when there are no fuel shortages. After peak oil, forecast in only a few years time, the cost of fuel will soar in comparison to today's cheap prices and by necessity most freight, apart from local deliveries, will once again be moved by rail.

Talking of increasing road traffic and requirements for new bridges is pie in the sky dreaming. People are ignoring the economic fundamentals and are wrongly assuming that we can continue as we are. We need investment in sustainable infrastructure. The new bridge will never earn a penny for the Scots economy unless it is capable of handling heavy freight trains!
23

,

18/06/2008 18:54:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

truthsleuth,

18/06/2008 23:16:48
The case for the secod crossing is now DEAD.
If the petrolheads and hauliers and 'private enterprise fanatics' want one let them create a company to build it.

They could then decide whether they wanted to charge tolls for it or use it for free.
25

truthsleuth,

19/06/2008 00:25:30
ps
The toll for the M6toll is £2 for cars and £8 for HGV
The M6Toll cost £400milion those years ago
The Second forth crossing will cost£4000million plus.

I calculate that the toll on the second Forth bridge should be £20 for cars and £80 for lorries.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.