Recommended Posts

I am not in any way a civil engineer; but my guess would be that it was considerably cheaper to demolish it and build a new one, than to rebuild the existing bridge to the acceptable standard. Remember that it had received no structural maintenance for the thick end of half a century. Despite those structures looking incredibly solid, like anything else they need looking after or else they deteriorate beyond economical repair.

Doesn't mean I think the new bridge is better though. You're right, it does look cheap and nasty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting Cliff Ton, I've simply no recollection of the Fitchett & Woolacott Bridge. Although I do remember where the two bridges were side by side at the end of Cliff Rd.

Actually, now looking at the bridge relating to the thread, I reckon I prefer the new one.

Just looking at the picture further, I see the old Midland Magneto garage just to the left under the bridge. Spent much money there having regular repairs to the electrics of my two Triumph Vitesses in the early seventies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok lets assume it was not worth repair where did the millions of blue bricks worth about 40pence each second hand go to ,and who had the money ,nobody would believe they went to landfill

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more information, from 'The Rise & Fall of Nottingham's Railway Network Vol. 3 - Off the Beaten Track' by Hayden J. Reed, published by Book Law.

'[The] short section of the old GCR structure [crossing the Nottingham Canal] was incorporated into the NET Line One...The additional width required for platforms necessitated the construction of a reinforced concrete cantilever deck above the original structure.'

'The first half kilometre of route follows the line and level of the Great Central's London Extension. The steel bridges that carried the GCR had disappeared long before the NET project evolved, but six spans of the old GC viaduct to the north of Station Street, including the crossing of the Beeston Canal were reused with new cantilevered parapets to carry the platforms of the terminus. Initial designs had planned to use more of the GCR structure to the north of Canal Street, but the desire for clear space beneath the structure to permit development, and the complexity of providing a [tramway] connection access to Middle Hill led to the old arches being abandoned in favour of a new purpose built structure.'

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.