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 Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Forth Road Bridge not so corroded as feared



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
Latest survey of the structure puts lorry ban back to 2017.


THE Forth Road Bridge is not deteriorating as quickly as feared, meaning a ban on lorries using the crossing should not be necessary until 2017 at the earliest – three years later than expected.

A new inspection report from the Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) indicates the bridge's main suspension cables have now lost about ten per cent of their strength due to corrosion.

In 2004, the first internal inspection of the 44-year-old bridge found an eight per cent loss of strength and warned weight restrictions might need to be introduced some time between 2014 and 2020.

A Scottish Executive study soon afterwards warned a ban on HGVs could be necessary as early as 2013, with possible total closure of the bridge six years later.

But, following the latest inspection in February and March this year, FETA's consulting engineers FaberMaunsell are optimistic the rate of deterioration is at the "slower end" of expectations.

If efforts to halt the corrosion fail, they say it is more likely weight restrictions would be needed some time between 2017 and 2021.

The latest projections give breathing space to those in charge of building the new Forth Road Bridge approved at the end of last year.

Preparation work is already under way, but construction is not due to start until 2011, with completion scheduled for 2016.

The inspection involved taking samples of the thousands of individual wires that make up each cable and carrying out laboratory tests, including tensile tests, chemical analyses and corrosion analyses.

Barry Colford, FETA chief engineer and bridgemaster, said: "The good news is that, although the cables are still losing strength, the worst case scenario of an HGV ban in 2014 now looks unlikely."

A dehumidification system is currently being installed on the bridge in a bid to prevent further corrosion.

Mr Colford said: "The bridge's long-term structural integrity also depends on the outcome of precautionary checks on the bridge's anchorages, and we won't know the results of this work until 2011/12 either."





The full article contains 354 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 June 2008 11:52 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/06/2008 12:18:05
Ah, right on plan.

If I recall correctly, the idea was to increase the frequency and impact of roadworks, and talk up the imminent danger of closing the bridge, whilst opposing the construction of a tunnel because it failed to work as a replacement (though it would work admirably as a complementary crossing).

Now that agreement has been secured, the first phase of the climb-down is to acknowledge that closure to HGVs is a lot further off than we thought. Phase 2 of the climbdown, in a year to 18 months' time, will be to announce that this irreversible corrosion can in fact be reversed, using a miracle process (which is of course terribly expensive), and there will be no need to close the bridge at all.

Net result - road haulage wins, environment and sustainable transport loses.
2

Vic,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 12:24:58
#1 'If I recall correctly..' If you recall what? A top secret memo detailing this dreadful conspiracy?
3

Bring Back Poll Tax,

18/06/2008 12:32:50
#1 I've always wondered what "sustainable" means when used in a green-drivel context.

The only mode of transport that is truly "sustainable" is one that does not rely on the use of energy resources - e.g. animal power.

Trains need diesel or electricity to run and there just isn't the money in the economy to provide a 100% swap over to "sustainable" (e.g. wind/tidal/hydro) sources of electricity.

The correct term is actually "slightly-more-sustainable-than-oil-powered".

If it was possible under some form of draconian dictatorial regime to ban all private vehicle use and shift all road haulage to rail then we'd have to build another couple of cross-Forth rail bridges to cater for demand so it's a pointless argument.

it simply isn't possible to turn the clock back to some idyllic rural myth of self sufficient hamlets (riddled with malnutrition and disease) so let's just get on with building the second Forth crossing (preferably a tunnel).

4

Heretic_,

18/06/2008 12:35:47
#1 - Or perhaps they've just inspected the cables and found that the corrosion is not progressing as quickly as was originally feared...........
5

alex paterson,

embra 18/06/2008 12:37:12
Why the change of mind,maybe a new survey Co,who made the first mistake and why.
6

alex patersons English teacher,

18/06/2008 12:59:37
6
hear we go, the clone ranger.
7

Incandescent,

18/06/2008 13:04:42
D Napier will no doubt be along shortly to endow us with his wisdom on all things "bridge".
8

Agent 99,

18/06/2008 13:06:54
Great picture tells it all. Rent-an-engineer Mike shows hows the cables are not as bad as feared. The revision of corrosion timescales has been possible by a quick-thinking susbstition of a metric ruler for the imperial one used by the previous consultants. Mike of course, knows nothing about steel, cables or bridges and is here today courtesty of TIEd [up] Pty, an non- profit making, non-thinking organisation dedicated to supporting consultants everywhere. Mike was selected for his studious good looks and ability to cut a swathe with the hard hat.

Reports that this section of bridge main cable was being examined in the lab at Strathclod university were today denied by TIEd [down] officials, saying instead that the bridge needed every inch [sorry centimetre] of cable if it was to function correctly.
9

geekpie,

forfar 18/06/2008 13:40:30
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 a selfish lifestyle choice.
10

Incandescent,

18/06/2008 13:50:07
#10 geekpie

Enough of your kelp-weaving, mung bean-nibbling madness. I see at least you've resisted the urge to harp on about children supposedly not being able to walk to school.
11

My opinions count for more than yours,

because I'm special 18/06/2008 15:51:35
When do we get to talk about Trotskyites?
12

truthsleuth,

18/06/2008 17:03:54
#1 Had got it right

The damage is not as bad as first thought
the second bridge is now not only not necessary as it never has been
but this lack of necessity can only not be put back but deferred forever.

of course petrol heads and road hauliuers ccould show how vital the second crossing was by setting up a private company to build it.

They could then make a profit on it by charging tolls or let wveryone cross free on their brand new icon.

I await the rush to set up the company to show they really do believe in private enterprise.
13

,

18/06/2008 20:53:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

JayDeeTee,

18/06/2008 23:45:29
ALTERNATIVE STORY;-However the Liebour Party are as corroded as feared.
15

truthsleuth,

19/06/2008 00:26:24
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.
16

Forthtag,

South Queensferry 23/06/2008 21:56:07
#15 I think you have not factored in the usage. M6 is much higher. The actual toll based on a thirty year concession with 37500 vehicles crossing each way per day would be in excess of £80 per day for a car!!!

Probably nearer £200 for a lorry, considering the damage they have done to the existing bridge this is cheap!!!

This currently is the most expensive bridge in the world so be prepared to pay world class prices.


 

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.