On 10th April 2019 the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham suddenly and without notice announced that Hammersmith Bridge was closed to all traffic due to urgent concerns about its structural integrity. To anyone familiar with the bridge or its history the surprise must be that it had taken so long for this almost inevitable event to happen. Behind it lies a story of the failure to properly monitor the structure and fund repairs in a timely manner which in turn tells of the failure of government at all levels to properly protect our existing structures.
Hammersmith Bridge may not be that important when it comes to our national transport network but the saga is a microcosm of what many feel is a failure to properly fund and maintain our transport network. We look at the history of the bridge, what is happening now and what the future may bring. In addition to this, the signage and travel information provided by TfL is a telling indication of how London’s once great, properly administered, information about the travel services provided has become pitifully inadequate, disorganised and lacking in clarity. Frank Pick would have been appalled.
“It wasn’t built for modern traffic”
As we shall see later, the excuses and eagerness to pin the blame on someone else seems to have been in overdrive when it comes to Hammersmith Bridge. All sides seemed keen to point out that Hammersmith Bridge opened in 1877 in an era of when travel was generally on foot or by horse. Even bicycles were a relative rarity with the somewhat impractical penny farthing only just starting to be superseded by the ‘safety bicycle’ – the forerunner of the bicycle of today with pneumatic tyres on two equal-size wheels.
The age of Hammersmith Bridge is a valid point when considering the factors which has led to the situation we are now in. Indeed one could go further and point out that the foundations of the bridge were built for a previous bridge on the same site and date back to 1827. This, of course, does not explain why the bridge has to suddenly be shut. Some of the rail lines into London Bridge are located on viaducts built in the 1830s. Hungerford Rail Bridge was built in the 1860s as was Westminster Bridge. Both still see intensive use today. Construction of Tower Bridge (opened 1894) started just two years after the construction of the present-day Hammersmith Bridge yet that has been properly maintained throughout its life.
Blame the structural design …
One of the problems of Hammersmith Bridge is its unusual design. In fact there doesn’t even seem to be universal agreement on how to categorise it. Probably the best description is that it is a chain-link suspension bridge Unfortunately, the phrase “it is only as good as its weakest link” is probably very apt when describing this kind of bridge. Whereas a cable suspension link has redundancy in that the cable has many parallel strands of wire, any one of which can snap (providing not too many do) without affecting the overall integrity of the bridge, a chain-link suspension bridge is a series of construction links where every chain-link has to be sound for the bridge to be safe.
Not surprisingly the world has seen very few chain-link suspension bridges. Rather bafflingly large signs currently on the bridge claim that the only two in the world are Hammersmith Bridge and one at Budapest. More specifically the latter is one linking the cities of Buda and Pest on opposite banks of the River Danube. In fact Hammersmith Bridge isn’t even the only chain suspension bridge traversing the Thames.
The claim made about the bridge being one of only two in the world in existence must come as news to the people of Marlow who claim that their bridge is one of only two in the world – the other being Budapest. The people of Marlow have better claim as the one at Budapest was actually modelled on their much smaller bridge. In fact there are quite a few “chain suspension bridges” (listed here) including the Clifton suspension bridge.
To make matters worse, Hammersmith Bridge is largely constructed of wrought iron despite the fact that by the 1880s steel was starting to replace wrought iron. It was an era where the cost of making steel was being reduced due to the introduction of the Bessemer converter which was patented in 1856 and the first experimental converter built in 1857.
… or maybe the IRA
A sure sign of a weak design of a structure is its attractiveness to terrorists.
Al Qeada had struck the World Trade Center in New York in 1993 and clearly, even then, recognised its structural weakness which they again exploited on September 11th 2001. In a similar way the IRA has attacked Hammersmith Bridge and caused some damage three times (1939, 1996 and 2000). On the final occasion their main explosive device went off and it caused the bridge to be closed for two years and when it did reopen further weight restrictions were initially put in place due to the permanent damage caused.
… or maybe the politics behind it
At present Hammersmith Bridge is absolutely festooned with signs. One that may seem insignificant and irrelevant is one just a few yards on the south side of the bridge. It can be seen shortly after you leave the bridge in a southbound direction. It tells you that your are entering the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. Curiously, there is no sign in the opposite direction informing you that you are entering the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (LBH&F).
The Thames is an obvious feature to be used a boundary for different administrative districts. Famously, one traditionally refers to the two sides of the Thames in this area as the ‘Surrey bank’ or ‘the Middlesex bank’. This all works fine until a bridge is built across the river and someone has to have ownership of it. Hammersmith Bridge was built by Sir Joseph Bazalgette (of sewers fame) and chief engineer of the former Metropolitan Board of Works.
The Metropolitan Board of Works was the predecessor of the London County Council which was later enhanced to be the Greater London Council (GLC). The was wound up but eventually replaced by the Greater London Authority (GLA). TfL is the transport arm of the GLA and you would think both logically and by historical precedent that it would be responsible for Hammersmith Bridge – but it isn’t. It is up to LBH&F to maintain it.
To make matters worse, the people most affected by the closure are those who live in Barnes and the surrounding area south of the river rather than residents of LBH&F. The next bridge upstream is Barnes rail bridge and further upstream still is Chiswick Bridge. Chiswick Bridge is a substantial 1930s structure and at least partially in the London Borough of Hounslow but TfLs responsibility. Buses diverted from Hammersmith via Chiswick Bridge take around 15 minutes to reach the south side of Hammersmith Bridge – providing there is little or no traffic along the route.
On the downstream side, the next crossing point is Putney Bridge which is already very congested traffic-wise – especially on the south side where Putney town centre is located. Putney Bridge is the responsibility of the London Borough of Wandsworth. A few years ago they closed the bridge for a while for planned maintenance and repair so that bridge is currently in good condition.
The reality is that there is really very little alternative to Hammersmith Bridge without a very long detour. To make matters even worse Charing Cross Hospital in Fulham with its accident & emergency facilities is, by road, less than a mile away from the north end of Hammersmith Bridge and even ambulances are banned from crossing the bridge.
So, in summary then, you have:
- LBH&F who own the bridge
- The London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames whose residents are bearing the brunt of the impact of the bridge closure
- Chiswick Bridge which lies in the London Borough of Hounslow so they bear some of the impact of closure
- The London Borough of Wandsworth being responsible for Putney Bridge and the traffic on the south side of it.
To add to the complexity, TfL is responsible for red routes and both Chiswick and Putney bridges are on red routes. Hammersmith Bridge is not on a red route and therefore, strictly speaking is nothing to do with TfL – other than their buses run over it. However TfL were already taking a keen interest in the bridge and were offering to contribute substantially to its refurbishment – as was envisaged prior to the latest micro-cracks being discovered in the wrought iron structure.
As well as that, TfL are very active in promoting cycling. The transport users who have been main beneficiaries of the closure of the bridge have definitely been cyclists and it is this group that may need placating when the bridge finally re-opens. Certainly, the increase in numbers will almost certainly have to be taken into account.
.. but it is probably all down to money
Another way of looking at the problem is that it is down to LBH&F to sort out the problem but they have no money. Cynics may say that the known need to repair the bridge went to the bottom of the queue because the people affected were relatively-affluent residents in Barnes. Of course, some residents (and certainly some businesses) in Hammersmith may be affected and it is also true that not all residents of Barnes are affluent and many relied on the bus over the bridge
The good old days. A roof-box RT bus goes over Hammersmith Bridge
Cynics have also suggested that the timing of the closure is suspicious – just days after the start of the financial year when the budget is effectively set in stone and too late to do anything about it until next year. The reality has more to do with the discovery of tell-tale micro-cracks. Probably of no relevance at all is that the Boat Race took place three days earlier and the bridge would have been packed with pedestrians. An earlier concern about the thousands of people on the bridge in 1870 in order to watch the Boat Race was what prompted the earlier bridge to be replaced. However, the nature of the cracks and where they were found means they had probably been there a long time and were caused by heavy traffic.
Crossrail style secrecy?
Something that has emerged following closure is that it certainly wasn’t the case that LBH&F were totally ignoring the situation. They were concerned and were actively monitoring the situation. Indeed they were even making preparations for a planned long-term closure to remedy the situation for good and were in the process of devising detailed plans to repair the bridge.
What was generally not known at the time is that LBH&F were starting to realise the situation may well be far more serious than previously thought. As well as a problem with the chains and the decking there was a potential problem with cracks in the wrought iron structure. It was these worse fears being confirmed that led to the sudden closure of the bridge.
Unfortunately, their openness as to the true situation of things as they were left something to be desired. It seems as, rather like Crossrail, they were hoping everything would turn out fine and things would go according to their rather optimistic plan. In the case of a bridge, unlike something like tube trains, delay doesn’t generally just mean that you spend uneconomic amounts keeping ancient structures going, there comes a point where you just have to close the bridge.
Don’t save for a rainy day
It would be all too easy simply to blame LBH&F but there is more to it than this. In times gone by councils would methodically check the status of its assets rather like Network Rail does. Councils would also borrow money in the event of an unexpected emergency. This willingness to borrow money met with the disapproval of the Treasury (the ultimate guarantor). It also led to some councils being rather too keen to borrow to overcome short-term problems. In any case, it could be argued that many instances of borrowing were not unexpected emergencies but something foreseeable.
The closure of Hammersmith Bridge was necessary and foreseeable and probably should have happened a few years ago. What caused the bridge to be suddenly closed could not have been foreseen unless the bridge had been fully (almost literally microscopically) examined as part of a periodic examination.
To get around not being able to borrow, councils then tended to build up contingency funds. This was something that seemed only prudent and sensible. However, some funds were becoming rather large and seen by some (typically politicians) as excessive. The government therefore restricted the amount of contingency funds that councils could hold as it was felt they were being unduly pessimistic and needlessly making unavailable money that could be used for local benefit.
TfL used to, very sensibly, have a large contingency measured in hundreds of millions of pounds. This led to some local politicians from the shires complaining to the Treasury that they had to do a lot of belt-tightening whilst TfL was awash with money yet receiving hundreds of millions of pounds each year from the Treasury. Of course, Crossrail has shown that TfL’s former contingency, far from being excessive, was prudent and could have been put to good use in the manner intended if they had been allowed to keep it.
The blame game
It is also the case that in times of austerity government and local government organisations tend to look for other organisations to foot the bill. This leads to various parties being quick to point the blame elsewhere For example, there is a page on the London Borough of Richmond web site about the Hammersmith Bridge closure. The first paragraph states
Hammersmith Bridge is owned and maintained by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF). Transport for London (TfL) is responsible for managing bus services across the bridge.
So, ‘nothing to do with us’.
Caroline Pidgeon, chair of the Assembly’s Transport Select Committee and a Liberal Democrat, was quick to blame Labour-run LBH&F:
“Hammersmith and Fulham Council are also attempting to make cheap political points. They are seeking to blame national government when in reality Transport for London have long been committed to investing in repairing and strengthening the bridge.”
Initially TfL seemed quite antagonistic and made a point of pointing out responsibility for the bridge lay with LB&F but now seem to have adopted a more co-operative and constructive tone:
We are working with Hammersmith and Fulham Council to confirm the final plan for this work as soon as possible.
It really is a big deal
For someone used to living in London and often adjusting their journey in the light of traffic problems it is probably hard to understand just what a big deal the closure of this small two-lane bridge already is. Drivers of heavy or wide vehicles will have known for years due to the weight restriction (generally 7.5 tonnes but at times has gone down to 5 tonnes) and the width restriction.
The only signposted weight exemption was for buses. These were restricted to single-decker in later years and, furthermore, only one bus in each direction was allowed on the bridge at one time. A rather cavalier attitude was taken to this rule until LBH&F threatened to ban buses completely unless it was fully observed.
Once the bridge was closed, car drivers found that their journey was going to take considerably longer. With the A4 in Hammersmith, just north of the bridge, a gateway into London and also to the west has effectively been made unavailable to those wanting to make a car journey or having no other realistic option.
Bus passengers would appear not to be so badly affected as they at least would have the option of walking over the bridge. Unfortunately for them, things were not as rosy as one might have thought. Just walking from the last stop on the south of the river to the first stop on the north is roughly a seven minute walk which is pleasant in good weather if you are fit and healthy. The diverted bus route takes an absolute minimum of 15 minutes.
For bus users at any rate, things are much worse than might appear. The diverted route by bus can take a lot longer. In practice bus passengers are probably heading to the bus or tube station at Hammersmith and that can easily be a 15 minute walk by the time one has managed to cross the one-way traffic system in Hammersmith. Worse still for the bus passenger, the buses are now much less predictable so extra time has to be allowed for a journey. And, as we shall come onto, it is really hard to find out what buses go where and when they go there.
The only beneficiaries from the bridge closure are pedestrians and cyclists. For pedestrians the bridge crossing is much more pleasant. Cyclists do not only have a safer and more pleasant crossing. The main road leading south, Castelnau, is almost empty giving an amenable cycle route all the way to Barnes railway station.
A ‘Southern’ moment
Word on the street that appears to be subsequently confirmed officially is that the closure is going to last three, maybe four, years. Many people are now openly talking about having to either give up work or change jobs. As well as that, some people are talking about needing to move. The reasons given are the same as in the Southern dispute. People arrive at work late due to unpredictability. They arrive home late which can be tolerated on an occasional basis but night-after-night and week-after-week really affects you.
When public meetings are arranged, they seem to be oversubscribed. These meetings seem to only take place in the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. This is despite the LBH&F council leader emphasising that the grade II* listed building is dear to the hearts of Hammersmith residents.
If anything good can be said it is that, rather like the Southern dispute, the users are no longer interested in the blame game. It seems to have been replaced by a desire, of the leaders from all parties affected at any rate, to just see the problem sorted. To this end it does seem that the boroughs of Richmond and Hammersmith & Fulham and TfL are all co-operating fully to try and resolve the issue.
A sometimes somewhat fractious public meeting organised by Richmond-upon-Thames council
What has also emerged is a more open description of the engineering issues LBH&F face. An excellent presentation of this (unfortunately from a bad camera angle) can be seen in the video above from around 11 minutes in to around 30 minutes in.
The bad news
The bad news in all this is that LBH&F is somewhat disingenuous when it reports that Hammersmith Bridge is being restored to full working order and its Victorian splendour. Unfortunately that is a statement of intent rather than what is happening now and in any case is it is diverting you from the fact that currently there is no plan yet available to provide the necessary repairs.
Whilst, as we have seen, LBH&F haven’t ignored the issue of Hammersmith Bridge, it seems that their top priority, understandably, was ensuring safety by closing the bridge once it was unsafe rather than striving to keep it open. It is almost as if the number of previous long-term closures over the years have made it seem acceptable to them to close the bridge for a couple of years or so when necessary.
Big Job
Even if tomorrow LBH&F came up with the money and a plan we are probably looking at an absolute minimum of two years to do the work. Everyone seems to agree that the bridge needs to be sorted out properly. Originally this appeared to be a matter of completely replacing the decking and the chain-links but this now seems complicated by the recognition that the support towers also need attention. Like the Golden Gate bridge in California, it seems it would be much easier just to take the bridge down and rebuild it but, equally like the Golden Gate bridge, this would not be acceptable to do to such an iconic (and in this case grade II* listed) structure.
The one thing that could be done
Inevitably there have been suggestions for a temporary road bridge but these have been quickly deemed as impractical. With the north (Middlesex) bank built-up there is no obvious place to put it even if it were otherwise practical. So we are basically stuck with the current situation for a good three years. The only mitigating measure really possible is to make sure the alternative arrangements are clearly signed and run as well as possible. And it is here that there is really no excuse for what has happened.
The initial cycle confusion
Not surprisingly, when the bridge was initially closed there was a level of confusion and chaos. The three major groups affected were cyclists, bus passengers and motorists. Initially, each of them had their own problems.
Incredibly, initially, the bridge was signposted in a way to suggests that cyclists were no longer allowed on the bridge. Part of the confusion seems to have arisen because cycling has always been banned on the pedestrian footways. The contractor involved seemed to mindlessly put up various confusing notices including ”Cyclists dismount” and appeared not to even grasp that the bridge was closed to motor traffic. In this they were not alone as a noticed displayed at Hammersmith (Hammersmith & City) station seemed not to make this clear.
Even days after the closure some contractors employees could be seen telling cyclists off for cycling on the bridge. The cyclists of course took not the slightest notice. More to the point, pedestrians are not allowed on the main bridge (only the footways) yet there were no signs telling pedestrians not to walk on the bridge (as many were doing) .
The initial bus confusion
It is entirely forgivable that the initial arrangements for bus passengers weren’t ideal. One route did continue to operate using a diversion route via Chiswick Bridge but had its capacity reduced elsewhere which was presumably because of the limited number of buses available. On the south side of the river, routes that normally terminate at Hammersmith terminated at ‘Castelnau (Lonsdale Road)‘. Whilst this was conveniently close to the south side of Hammersmith bridge, one would not be aware of this unless one was very familiar with local geography. A blind stating ‘Hammersmith Bridge (south side)‘ would have been so much more helpful.
Much of the problem with bus arrangements initially, seems to have been that the arrangements didn’t really cater for bus passengers walking across the bridge. For example, there wasn’t (and still isn’t) any pedestrian signposting between the final stop on the south side and Hammersmith station and bus station. Whilst that is not too bad when walking north across the river, it is certainly not obvious to someone unfamiliar with Hammersmith just how to get to Hammersmith bridge on foot and indeed that it isn’t actually very far away – certainly quicker than getting the bus.
The initial confusion also meant there was contradictory and just confusing information being displayed. In homage to Diamond Geezer’s saga narrating ‘Bus Stop M’ by the Bow Flyover we provide our short report on ‘Bus Stop S’. (For the original Bus Stop M saga click here and then click on the links to chapters within that document to read the individual reports.)
Bus Stop S
Bus Stop S is the last bus stop in Hammersmith before buses used to turn off the one-way system onto the approach to Hammersmith Bridge. A visit a few days after closure showed what originally seemed quite impressive documentation on the stop giving closure details. A nice touch was that routes on the bus flag that no longer served the stop were crossed out with a red cross alerting you to the temporary arrangements. But, inexplicably, this was only done on one side of the bus flag and wasn’t done for one route that a the countdown display on the bus shelter told you was no longer running.
There were notices giving details of the revised arrangements but these were quite generic whereas this bus stop, being the last before diversion, really deserved something specific. As stated earlier, part of the problem seemed to be that London Buses seemed to be planning on the basis of passengers taking the bus diversion rather than walking across the bridge.
Motorists
Motorists tend to lose out with unplanned closures. Sat-navs and route planners won’t necessarily be aware of these and it had to get the message across that the bridge is closed long before motorists are approaching the bridge. No effort, even now, seems to have been made to change directional road signs even though, from the outset, it must have been clear that the bridge would be closed for a long time – measured in years.
Consolidating bus changes
It was soon clear that the bus arrangements could be improved upon. In particular it made sense for London Buses to provide a dedicated link between central Hammersmith and the south side of the bridge This would enable other routes to operate ‘normally’ although somewhat shortened and would also fit in better with the fact that most bus passengers affected by the closure choose to walk over the bridge.
As seems to often be the case with TfL these days, this seems to be firmly in the category of ‘good idea badly implemented’. Regardless of whether it is the idea or the implementation that is the problem, many residents are urging TfL to restore the initial arrangements. The gory details of the changeover will be spared here but you can read a report on them in Diamond Geezer’s lengthy report on the subject. Judging by the situation weeks later, his report is not an exaggeration.
The situation today
Things are slowly improving, signage wise, but remain a bit chaotic. It is now clear that cyclists are allowed on the bridge but not the footways. A ‘No stopping’ sign makes it clear that motorists are not even allowed to drop people off at the south side of the bridge. Pedestrians and joggers are now told to keep off the carriageway and cyclists are specifically told to use the carriageway.
There are, or have been, confusing signs telling pedestrians to ‘keep left’. It is unclear whether this means that northbound pedestrians are supposed to use the upstream footway and southbound pedestrians the downstream one or that they can use either footway but must keep left on it. This wasn’t helped by at least one ‘keep left’ sign pointing to the right.
The road layout at the junction to the south of the bridge could be signposted a bit more permanently given the length of time the current situation is expected to remain.
Yet again, the biggest weakness seems to be with London Buses. The buses do not have appropriate blinds and so have temporary displays at the front that the drivers, inevitably and confusingly, forget to change.
The display for route 33 on one of the bus flags would leave Frank Pick spinning in his grave. It would probably leave Leon Daniels, until recently in charge of Surface Transport at TfL, spinning in his grave too if it were not for the fact he isn’t dead. And this isn’t the only example of highly non-standard signage.
As stated before, this stuff isn’t hard. It does cost money but this is tiny when considered with the rest of the expenditure involved on Hammersmith bridge yet it the one that creates the strongest impression.
It gets worse still. Northbound at Castelnau (Lonsdale Road) bus stop is a large spider map. It is, of course, out-of-date because TfL haven’t been updating spider maps. But an old map at this stop with so many bus changes is worse than useless. This is just one example. Even any expectation that notices on the bus stop are all posted the correct way up would be optimistic.
Perversely and counter-intuitively, one has to go to the southbound stop at Lonsdale Road to catch the replacement bus to go north to Hammersmith. This is something that passengers arriving at the final northbound stop on a terminating bus need to be alerted to – but they aren’t. Worse still the service is only half-hourly and not completely reliable. Yet for those without access to the latest phone technology there is no way of knowing if the shuttle bus will come or not. If ever there were a good case for a countdown screen at a bus stop then this is it. It may be a temporary need but three years is a long temporary time. Meanwhile, if there are any passengers using the shuttle bus, letting them know when it would be quicker to walk would be greatly appreciated. The shuttle bus would appear to be lightly used yet residents clamour for an improved service suggesting that demand would be there if a decent service were provided.
The future
There seems no doubt that the only medium term option is to repair the bridge. However desirable it may be in the minds of some people for it to be motor-traffic free, the overwhelming need to restore the link means that this isn’t really practical. There is also no obvious alternative alignment.
There is talk, in the really long term, of a replacement tunnel that could be part of network of tunnels involving the replacement of Hammersmith Flyover with a tunnel which in turn would release prime redevelopment land. Such a thing is decades away and completely unaffordable in the present financial climate.
TfL has agreed that the £25 million set aside continues to be available to get the bridge re-opened. They are keen to be able to once again run double-decker buses over the bridge. Although not officially coupled to them providing the cash, it is suspected that they will be looking for confirmation of that before handing it over. Even with the £25 million and what LBH&F are able or willing to provide (and maybe London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames too) it seems there is still a shortfall on the expected cost and we all know how expected costs have a nasty habit of rising when the detail is worked out. So currently there is neither a technical solution nor a financial one.
To make matters worse still, electric vehicles at the moment are much heavier than their ‘gas-guzzling’ equivalent. This is true for buses as well as cars. And the trend in the car-buying world is for heavier bulkier SUVs anyway. So by the time the bridge is repaired or rebuilt it will have to deal with greater loads than ever before just to handle the same level of traffic.
Hammersmith Bridge is not the most important bridge over the Thames and its closure does not affect that many people. But the people affected are affected hard. And if you want to see the problems of transport in London first quarter of the 21st century played out on a small scale then look no further than all the issues with Hammersmith bridge.
Apologies for the recent lack of articles being published. All of us seem to be extremely busy at present with various different unrelated commitments outside the world of transport. Not helping is the fact that we are still getting used to WordPress’s modified editing interface which, at present, is less responsive than the previous one. Whilst undoubtedly beneficial in the long term it means things take longer whilst we get used to it.
Hopefully, like various disrupted rail services, things will slowly get back to normal.
What do you see happening? The chimneys of Battersea Power Station were replaced like for like, which is the best solution to collapsing listed structures I can think of. It would be a shame to have to close the crossing entirely to rebuild each support in accurately moulded reinforced concrete then paint it the right colours but that would serve preservation and utility reasonably.
In the short term I’d like to see a (Santander) bike dock south of the bridge, near the bus stops. This would be Richmond’s first. Other people have suggested a turning space nearer the bridge for buses to end nearer to it.
The TfL + LBH&F general thinking before the current crisis as to aim for an 18tonne deck loading to allow double deckers and most smaller rigid lorries.
NR have also recently repaired the weak Rocks Lane bridge over tracks 1m+ to the South adjacent to Barnes station and TfL/LB Richmond also have plans to address the Rock Lane / Mill Hill traffic lights
LBH&F and TfL also repaired Putney Bridge 2 years ago.
And TfL effectively repaired (PM and funding) Chiswich Bridge circa 4/5 years ago.
Both to deal with years of (ab)use.
Another fascinating article, thank you (and thanks to Diamond Geezer for his chronicles on this too).
Another river crossing that is suffering is the Rotherhithe tunnel. Again, the increased weight and width of modern vehicles seems to be an issue. This tunnel now has a two metre width restriction and a 2000kg weight limit. That weight limit bans vehicles such as the Range Rover (which weighs well over 2 tonne) though I suspect most drivers of such vehicles have no idea of their vehicle weight, because it didn’t seem to stop drivers of these vehicles going through the tunnel anyway.
Given the anticipated length of the closure, is it worthwhile to conduct some road layout alterations, not just near the bridge approaches, but also in the wider area to facilitate faster diversions, especially for the buses?
Was the notice on the lamppost anonymous, or from the Council?
[From the council. PoP]
Wouldn’t it be lovely to only ever have to invest in public transport, cycling and walking transport infrastructure? But that isn’t the reality.
Lots of people still use roads, and while large-scale expansion of road provision isn’t desirable, nor is closing key links like this one. Looking at the map, there are a couple of possible alternative locations, but none as good as the location of the current bridge.
I hope that when the evaluation is done, consideration is given to replacing the bridge entirely with a new structure. The listed status should be one input into the decision, not a restriction to preserve the status quo forever. I’m sure a careful dismantling would allow parts of the bridge to be given to an outdoor museum somewhere in the country.
The article refers to the bridge being largely built of wrought iron and then goes on to refer to problems with cast iron. According to the listing description of the bridge https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1079819 the bridge is a mixture of wrought iron, cast iron and mild steel. The towers have a wrought iron frame with cast iron cladding, suggesting that the cast iron is non-structural.
The (not very) technical description of the problem in the meeting video suggested that a small number of microfractures had been found in the cast iron bearings, which are seized. In the book ‘Thames Bridges’ by Neil Davenport (published by Silver Link Publishing in 2006) it is stated that work was done as recently as 1997-98 to free the chain bearings, so if there had been basic maintenance and lubrication there should not be a problem now.
I am not clear what the weekly inspections are meant to achieve. If you are checking for the extent of a fault in a structure you do that in a single inspection – however long that takes. Weekly inspections are appropriate where a serious flaw has to be checked to make sure it is not getting worse. With only five microfractures having been found, it seems most unlikely that the number is going to increase significantly in the space of a week.
[The two erroneous references to cast iron have been corrected to wrought iron. I am sure the weekly checks refer to checking the gauges which now proliferate the bridge. It should only take an hour or two to check these and would be well worth doing. If nothing else, you could establish if the situation is getting worse or if it has stabilised. PoP]
Just a minor point. Putney Bridge comes under Wandsworth Council, not Hammersmith & Fulham.
[Not according to Wikipedia though I accept Wikipedia can be wrong. Also, see comment above by ngh which seems to make it clear it comes under Hammersmith & Fulham. PoP]
Thank you for the article, as you say, welcome to the post industrial world of Small Government.
It says the bridge is largely constructed of wrought iron. According to Wikipedia:
“The bridge was refurbished in 1973 with replacement steel trusses, improvements to the mid-span hangers and new deck expansion joints. New deck timbers were installed and surfacing was changed from wooden blocks to coated plywood panels. These panels were subsequently replaced in 1987.”
It’s not entirely clear what this means, but from the close-up photos it looks as though the main chain links and hangers have been replaced in steel.
From what I recall of the DG article it’s the anchor blocks for the chains that are now the main problem. Presumably it would be possible to replace these without demolishing the bridge by installing temporary blocks beyond them with temporary connections to the chains.
I can imagine this taking longer and costing more than anyone is currently anticipating.
RogerB,
If I understand the public meeting briefing correctly (see video) the anchor blocks seized up years ago but no-one realised. These were the equivalent of shock-absorbers and worsened the state of the bridge which is probably what led to further problems. Again, as I understand it, the anchor blocks are relatively easily fixable now that the problem is known.
The real problem is the cracking of the cast iron structure. No-one yet has a solution for that. LBH&F are awaiting an engineers report (probably due in September). Until they know everything that is wrong there isn’t really much point in fixing anything.
Does not the problem go back to the time when Mrs Thatcher tried to abolish Ken Livingstone? Like Education, the bridges were “given back to the Boroughs” – which didn’t even exist when the London County Council was formed.
Pop
Your Wikipedia link is simply a list of Grade II listed buildings in H&F, which Putney Bridge is, or at least half of it is. That doesn’t make H&F responsible for it. If you then click on the link for the bridge, at the bottom of the resulting page it says Wandsworth carried out repairs in 2014.
I’m afraid ngh is also wrong in this instance As the Resident Engineer responsible for the major repairs and refurbishment to Putney Bridge in 1995 I can assure you that Wandsworth Council is the responsible authority and not H&F.
Mea Culpea – relying on memory.
Having checked it is owned by Wandsworth.
While most of the public meetings have been south of the river (organised by the MPs there and LBRUT), there was a LBHF meeting in Hammersmith on 19 June. LBHF council leader said “We are determined to restore the bridge. What we allow over it remains for discussion.”
Traffic measurements sensors have appeared in various roads in Chiswick and it will be interesting if there will be comprehensive data published to quantify the degree of traffic evaporation and displacement.
I have sighed and bit my tongue when listening to some of the suggestions from the public “bring in the army”, “build a Bailey bridge”, “build a new bridge beside the existing bridge”, “dig a tunnel”….
Here are a couple of articles about previous repairs to the bridge. It appears that the “saddles” on top of 2 supports were replaced in the 90s to allow some movement of the chain.
The deck is in a very poor state of repair at the moment with bolts and wooden deck visible through the asphalt. However replacing the decking seems simple compared to the issues with the suspension system.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/bearing-with-closure-refurbishment-of-historic-hammersmith-bridge-is-entering-a-critical-phase-dave-parker-reports-from-site-photographs-by-david-jones/845301.article
https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/iicep.1977.3057
“Inevitably there have been suggestions for a temporary road bridge but these have been quickly deemed as impractical. With the north (Middlesex) bank built-up there is no obvious place to put it even if it were otherwise practical.”
Queen Caroline Street is an extremely obvious place. The south end will require some remodeling (definitely worth it for 3 years of use) but the north end at the Gyratory is basically good to go.
Repairs will of course be complicated by the Super Sewer TBM making it way underneath sometime this year / early next making piling for the necessary temporary middle span support difficult (needed to take the weight of the deck while the chains etc are worked on). The last I heard (before the current emergency) was that they preferred a single middle span support at the mid point* over 2 at 1/3rds & 2/3rds.
*Albert Bridge style
The timing really is bad.
At the time of abolition of the GLC all of the bridges which it was responsible for were divided up between the riparian boroughs. In the run up to abolition the Labour boroughs were refusing to cooperate with the Government on the matter, though Tory and LibDem boroughs were. This tended to mean that the Labour boroughs picked up the more problematic bridges.
Quinlet
A similar fiasco occurred with respect to river traffic at the GLC abolition, particularly as many boroughs boundaries lay in the middle of the river.
Sorting out all the rules & permits & which operators were allowed to use boats, & what they were carrying & at what times etc ( etc , etc ) had to undertaken by said boroughs, who were not happy bunnies as a result.
Even more ‘fun’ was had by the boat owners & operators, who had to negotiate with all the various boroughs & multiple teams of lawyers & accountants, who were also highly annoyed, as it happens, because the work involved was both un-necessary & unprofitable (!)
Peter Heather, ngh,
I have corrected the point that it is actually the London Borough of Wandsworth that looks after Putney Bridge. I have also taken the opportunity to point out it was repaired a few years ago as a planned operation (in contrast to …)
Apologies for the initial error.
@Greg T – but surely only west of Teddington?
NGH – I think the leader of LBHF council had forgotten about the super sewer tunnel when he blithely mentioned the idea of a tunnel from Hammersmith to Barnes.
The gradients to get under the sewer and location of portals for a road tunnel would be… interesting…
I was glad to read I am not dead. I feel great but confirmation always welcome! There is a whole piece to be written on the degradation of customer-facing material but we can save that for another day.
Today’s point is clearly the 1999 legislation is defective. Leaving each bridge in Greater London with one of the two possible local authorities is clearly wrong and it would have been possible to vest them in TfL so that this very argument was avoided. Bridges are clearly of strategic importance and the loss of one has a disproportionate effect on others. Contrast this with the nearby Hammermith Flyover which I was obliged to close in December 2011 and which was very rapidly refurbished and future-proofed for another 50 years
@Graham H/ Greg T
At Teddington “westward” is actually downstream.
The PLA is responsible for the navigation on the tidal river, downstream of Teddington, and upstream of Teddington the Environment Agency (formerly the National Rivers Authority) is responsible for navigation matters.
Some drafting misses: [snip. Now corrected, thanks. PoP]
The connection between 19th century bridge construction for horse road haulage and railway locomotion of hundreds of tons is not comparable.
Many old cities have preserved historic bridges with limited access. London only truly has two ‘historic’ crossings and neither with ‘historic’ structures. Even the listing system has continual redevelopment whilst preserving the ‘London look.’ This bridge has already had modification and will likely emerge looking familiar but different.
The customer service of TfL/GLA is similar across all operations so nothing here seems unusual. Accepting a relatively small group is being significantly impacted most Londoners will not notice given the significant funding required. After some years everyone will have adapted and a reopening could be an opportunity to restrict it to being an all electric bridge in keeping with it’s illuminations. The vehicles may be heavy but fewer numbers and technology is advancing with lighter weight material such as high strength steel.
There was in fact a public meeting in Putney last week, the day after the two meetings in Barnes. TfL were there along with local MP Justine Greening . Hammersmith & Fulham Council were a no show…
http://www.putneysw15.com/default.asp?section=info&page=issuehammersmithbridge007b.htm
Re Reynolds 853,
Especially as the highest point of the super sewer is where it starts at Furnival Gardens just 150m west of the bridge.
The previous leadership of LBH&F kicked up a big stink about the sewer so you would think they have some memory. (they couldn’t tell the difference between fresh water and sewage at that point either!)
I have been living next to Hammersmith Bridge for five years. Whilst I am enjoying the dramatic improvements in air/noise/visual pollution, this is a mess that really does need sorting out. Some thoughts from me:
– When I first moved here, the bridge looked clean, all of the lighting worked, the road surface was okay, and the barrier system to control bus flows worked. Since then, loads of the lighting has broken, the bridge looks much tattier, the road surface/decking is trashed and the barrier system broke, was resuscitated, broke again and was then been replaced by people being paid to stand at either side of the bridge controlling buses in all weathers. It therefore does not surprise me that things have deteriorated so much with the structure itself too.
– The confusion around control of pedestrians/cyclists after closure was completely unnecessary – how hard is it to produce the right signs and put them in the right place?
– I endorse all the comments regarding TfL ‘management’ of bus changes, Diamond Geezer sums up the situation perfectly.
– I agree with all the comments regarding stewardship of strategic infrastructure assets such as this being in the hands of individual Boroughs – recipe for disaster – give them all to TfL and be done with it.
– I believe the bridge needs to be made fit for carrying motorised traffic again. However, if the bridge is to be shut for such a long period, this gives plenty of time to undertake detailed traffic surveys to understand the impact on other routes. If we really are serious about tackling pollution and congestion in London, I believe that the bridge should be re-opened for bus traffic (plus pedestrians/cycles) only.
– I have enjoyed watching the enterprising fellows keeping the supply of takeaway deliveries running smoothly across the bridge. Mopeds are now driving up to the bridge and exchanging parcels with e-scooter/cycle riders to continue the delivery southwards over the river. Barnes residents may have a nightmare with the school run in the morning, but their evening delivery of Byron burgers can still get through! (other takeaway outlets are available)
Another minor point of pedantry regarding the statement “Chiswick Bridge is a substantial 1930s structure and is looked after by the London Borough of Hounslow. ”
Chiswick Bridge is crossed by the A316 and this is a “red route”, part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) so surely TfL is responsible for Chiswick Bridge?
Same for Kew Bridge, crossed by the A205 (S Circular), so TfL is responsible.
Some cargo bike companies have been carrying impressive loads across Hammersmith Bridge.
https://twitter.com/pedalmeapp/status/1143083253341085697
Re Reyolds953,
As I said above TfL project managed the 2014/5 Chiswick Bridge / A316 works .
The TfL completion press release from the time:
“The restoration of Chiswick Bridge forms part of TfL’s continuing £4bn Road Modernisation Plan, which represents the biggest investment in London’s roads in a generation, including hundreds of transformational projects within the existing road network. Using radical ideas and innovative designs, the plan will make London’s roads greener, safer and more attractive for the benefit of all Londoners.”
PedalMe are an excellent alternative to cabs unless its raining.
They took me and my luggage (combined weight 105kg) from Victoria to Paddington stations today in 20 minutes for £13.
I’m not sure a cab would have been any faster, or cheaper, especially as it was a busy time of day.
(PedalMe are the bike cargo/taxi company @Reynolds953 referred to in the context of the bridge… wanted to add that note so my post didn’t look like an off-topic advert. I have no connection with the company other than as an occasional user.)
[Just as well you added this. I was in the process of deleting your previous comment minutes after it was posted. PoP]
@Leon Daniels
From a traffic point of view it would be a nightmare if TfL was the traffic authority for the bridges but the boroughs remained the traffic authorities for the roads leading up to them. A fight to get TfL as the traffic authority for a much wider network of roads would be hard fought and would end up as a pyrrhic victory for TfL if that was the outcome. This, though, was the formula in the GLC era, where the GLC was the traffic authority for all roads in London. The responsibility for being the highway authority, though, was split between the GLC and the boroughs and this split worked somewhat better. The difference is that the traffic authority is responsible for managing the traffic on a road, while the highway authority is responsible for the maintenance, upkeep and physical condition of the road as a public asset.
@timbeau/Greg T – I was taking a strategic rather than a pedantic (and somewhat misleading) view of Teddington. Maybe one should have said “upstream” for the avoidance of controversy. The mention of Teddington was, of course, deliberate as that is the limit of the PLA’s jurisdiction over navigation. The PLA controls navigation and mooring on the tidal Thames; interborough issues about these things arise upstream – quite a small number of boroughs in practice.
I still remain puzzled as to exactly what the problem with the bridge is, for the presentation at the meeting was not at all clear. The statement that cast iron was replaced by steel for bridge construction was plain wrong, which makes me wonder what else might not have been entirely correct. The problem with cast iron (it is strong in compression, but susceptible to fracture when in tension) was known by 1850, particularly following the collapse of the Dee railway bridge at Chester in 1847. Wrought iron was used for tension members in most cases thereafter. Steel was not widely used for bridge construction until the end of the 19th century, when improved production methods made it cheaper.
It appears that the structural frame of Hammersmith Bridge is wrought iron, but some part of the bearings are cast iron. I wonder how this is designed so that failure is considered to be catastrophic.
It should be noted that the condition of a bridge and its load-bearing capacity are quite separate issues. A bridge may be in perfect condition, but to a weak design – which is, to a large extent, the fundamental problem with Hammersmith Bridge. It is also possible for a bridge to be in poor condition, but still able to carry a significant load, usually because it was built with excess capacity. In the case of Hammersmith Bridge the poor condition of the asphalt surface is most unlikely to be of any structural consequence, though it may indicate insufficient maintenance generally – including to more critical parts.
Does anyone know what in-house engineering expertise LBHF has and to what extent they have to rely on the advice of external consultants?
Excellent article, with some much needed detail on this subject. Thank you for posting.
I’m certain Chiswick Bridge is maintained by TfL, not LB Hounslow. It is on the Red Route network and TfL maintain all structures on the Red Routes. When the GLC was abolished Chiswick Bridge was not one of those handed to the boroughs because it was on the GLC Metropolitan Road network and became a trunk road, operated by the DTp and then the Highways Agency before passing to TfL.
Re Londoner in Scotland,
“In the case of Hammersmith Bridge the poor condition of the asphalt surface is most unlikely to be of any structural consequence, ”
It doesn’t have an asphalt surface – Plywood coated with silicon carbide to make it grippy enough is the top surface with the coated ply screwed to more ply underneath and timber baulks (railway sleeper timbers dimension but laid on their side) below that which rests on the wrought iron deck framework.
@LIS: it is also unclear to me what the problem is (see 25 June 16:23). I assume it to be the anchor blocks, which are in tension taking the tension from the chains. The towers are, I understand in stone, and essentially in compression apart from thermally induced movements as the chains expand and contract.
The problem with any bridge is that most of its strength is used holding itself up (technically the ‘deadweight’) and taking away the traffic makes little difference to the stresses. It is unlikely that the analysis of the stresses is sufficiently precise to tell whether the affected component is likely to fail under dead load or live load, leaving one to suspect that the whole issue is motivated by politics rather than engineering.
Chris5156 (roads.org.uk),
Thank you for that. I have amended the article. It does seem that rather strange that both Chiswick and Putney Bridge are on the TfL Red route network yet one bridge is managed by them and the other isn’t. There just seems to be a logical inconsistency about all this for the historical reasons you explain.
As is often the case, there are little subtleties that never occur to me when I write the article.
Reyolds953 and ngh,
I don’t think the super sewer is much of an issue when it comes to a tunnel. The leader of LBH&F made the point that they were looking to build a tunnel somewhere in the vicinity and that would depend on a lot of factors including where would be the best place to put it.
It could easily start west of Furnival Gardens and that might well make a lot of sense as it could sweep around and line up with the current flyover alignment by the time it got north of the river.
LBH&F has assets on the balance sheet of £2.2bn and today they spend £20m/yr on finance costs. They take in £86m/yr in council tax and £74m/yr in business rates.
They aren’t a big enough entity to underwrite £1bn of tunnel spending with a optimistic £50m/yr financing and operating cost.
@Bob – I suppose H&F might be able to raise a loan from the PWLB, with a typical interest rate of around 2.5-3% at the moment, but even that, in these days of straightened finances would be a big ask. Then there are the non-trivial operating costs (ventilation, signalling, inspection and physical maintenance), which, on the basis of the Hindhead tunnel of comparable length, might be as much as £5m/year. Presumably, H&F are hoping that some third party will chip in, although it’s far from clear who that might be.
Bob,
The implication is that the tunnel would be a part of a long-term redevelopment plan and that there would be funding from the Mayor and, maybe, national government.
Part of it is to revive an idea which involves putting the traffic currently on the Hammersmith Flyover in a tunnel. This would do a lot to enhance the area and also free off prime land to help pay towards the costs.
And yes the figures don’t add up today. And it may well be pie-in-the-sky. But Hammersmith Bridge isn’t going to last forever as a bridge capable of sustaining road traffic and permanent closure is regarded as impractical without an alternative. So, basically, one day something will have to be done.
PoP – Putney Bridge isn’t on the TfL red route network, not according to this map anyway. http://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/red-route-pan-london-lohac-map.pdf
As I understood it, the issue is micro-fractures in the anchor points for the suspension. This problem may have been caused by some of the suspension chain links seizing therefore motion of the bridge has been transmitted as compression and tension into the anchors rather than being taken up by flexibility in the suspension chains.
It is motion of the bridge as a result of weather and traffic doing this rather than the dead weight of the bridge.
It isn’t clear to me if the chains above the bridge supports have also seized. This has the additional issue of applying horizontal forces to the supports which are designed to carry a downwards force.
The “saddles” carrying the suspension chain at the top of the supports were replaced in 2 of the supports in the 90s and I believe 2 others in the 70s but I haven’t seen confirmation if one or more of these have seized again.
Compared to these issues, the bridge decking can almost be considered a “consumable”.
At the risk of getting off-topic, the road tunnel or so-called flyunder really wouldn’t deliver the claimed benefits. Almost half of the traffic going through Hammersmith wouldn’t use it so there would still be 2-4 lanes on the surface at current traffic levels. I’d like to see the politicians promoting it shown a map with the footprint required for a tunnel portal and access roads and asked where they would like to put it. When Hammersmith did a survey of residents, the most favoured option was a long tunnel with the portal in the neighbouring borough of Hounslow (who of course, weren’t consulted). And of course the longer the tunnel, the fewer vehicles will use it.
IMO the hell-hole of the Gyratory could be improved by “unwinding it” and turning it into a two way road with the crossing between the Broadway and King St pedestrianised. That would require changes to the bus station entries and exits.
@GH
Is there any chance of asking the Bridge House Estates for a contribution?
I think the best thing Hammersmith could do with the gyratory is close it and force all through-traffic to Chelsea/Westminster to travel via Kensington.
I’m only partly joking – I’m not sure why H&F want their town center to be little more than a polluted roundabout on a through route.
I suppose this is what @Reynolds 953’s Hammersmith Flyunder would achieve – provided the portals were far enough apart 🙂
@Nameless – one could try but the City is notoriously tightfisted and I’m sure the “don’t set a precedent” arguments would be to the fore! (I suspect that LBH&F might have real difficulty in arguing whether Hammersmith bridge has any effect on City traffic.)
More generally, local authorities are supposed to keep up-to-date asset registers stating the insurable value of the asset and a parallel risk register identifying major risks to assets and activities with a statement of what remedial action would be taken in the event of the risk occurring. One would expect LBH&F to do this and to have identified the insurable value* of the bridge and taken out a policy accordingly. [Lest this seem slightly frivolous. the parish council whose finance committee I chair, takes out an insurance policy to cover inter alia, the replacement cost of the war memorials in its care. (Whether a war memorial really costs £48k to replace is a matter we are currently investigating)}.
——————————————————————————————————————-
*”Value”? Old lags on this site will recall the very real difficulty of valuing “passive” assets such as rail infrastructure with choices between money sunk on maintenance, purchase price, some nominal sum, full historic replacement cost or MEA. The bridge is no different in that respect.
@Graham H
“interborough issues about these things arise upstream [of Teddington] – quite a small number of boroughs in practice.”
Two – Richmond (on the Middlesex bank, and a short length of the Surrey bank immediately upstream of the lock), and Kingston (the rest of the Surrey bank). There are only three bridges on this stretch, Teddington footbridge (both ends in Richmond), Kingston railway Bridge (not run by either borough) and Kingston Bridge (Kingston’s responsibility I believe).
@AP
“public meeting in Putney last week, the day after the two meetings in Barnes. TfL were there along with local MP Justine Greening . ”
Just for clarity – the south end of the bridge is actually in the Richmond Park constituency, which is the seventh most marginal seat in the country. Defending a majority of 0.07%, or 45 votes, the MP has been very vocal about the shortcomings of LBHF and the Mayor of London’s handling of the problem.
@timbeau – thanks for that; I’d suspected the number was as low as two – and with only one road bridge involved between them (and a ferry).
The problem with any suggestion for a tunnel to replace Hammersmith Bridge will not particularly be avoiding the super sewer, but the length of the entry/exit ramps. These would not just be seriously long but would create a significant barrier on each side as crossing them is difficult for most of their length, because of the additional height needed to clear traffic on the ramps. It is this, as much as anything else, which has killed any idea of a flounder for Hammersmith Gyratory to replace the flyover. The argument that you could make the tunnel longer to put the entry/exit ramps in less inconvenient locations is all very well, but the longer the tunnel the less attractive it is to traffic because traffic joining or leaving on intermediate side roads is automatically excluded. Even if sufficient money was available (which it isn’t) getting an acceptable design for the ramps is nigh on impossible.
How about a temporary road bridge that sits slightly above the existing bridge? Of course it would have to be a bit narrower, but even for a several-year temporary solution that could be solved with a single lane for traffic in both directions with traffic lights.
@Timbeau, I meant the local Putney MP. The bridge closure has affected bus users well beyond those just south of the river. Remember that the withdrawn 72 bus south of the bridge serves a key part of the London Borough of Wandsworth. Roehampton has lost out badly in the bus changes with both a hospital and a university affected.
Just to give you some idea of the various lives affected. There’s a doctor’s surgery just over the bridge, in the shadow of the Hammersmith flyover. It has patients, many elderly, across the river in Barnes.
This week I have been reading Barnes and Mortlake Past by Maisie Brown. Published in 1997 in includes this line on the bridge…
“…in recent years the weight of the traffic has rendered it unsafe. In February 1997 it was closed indefinitely to all but pedestrians,cyclists and bus passengers, and its future remains uncertain.”
@AP
My email was fore clarification. I know that Putney is affected as well. I’m also hearing a lot about the closure as a colleague lives near the south end of the bridge.
@Miam
What would support this temporary bridge? – the existing one couldn’t take the weight, so it would need its own foundations, presumably outboard of the existing ones. And it would make access to the old bridge for repairs more difficult.
@Graham H
Where is there a ferry between LB Richmond and LB Kingston?
I would like to offer a link to the post I too did on Hammersmith bridge, but then, I’m not rich, not abled, not part of a blogging cabal, and the rest of it.
Hammersmith bridge wasn’t some serious job such as Menai or Clifton, essentially its a tin can, and as we know, those are used once and then thrown away. I think a total rebuild is needed. The chain bridge in Budapest is a total rebuild too even though the original was a solid job (it was bombed in wwII) yet many see it as ‘historic.’
Hammersmith bridge may be yet another of the many signs that we need to reconsider travelling and transport, and the rest of it. If Heathrow’s new runway is being built no doubt it shows people still think in the old classic ways of transport thus the argument for repairing Hammersmith bridge runs along that aegis.
This was that our transport systems remained on target to grow and grow and ultimately suffocate the world. These structures (and many others) were built at a time when the idea of transport and social mobility was different, namely empowerment, freedom and economic prosperity.
Eventually the Channel Tunnel will have its problems too yet nobody is thinking that far ahead. Its not about whether we should build a new tunnel but what the alternatives could be and whether all these plans for new bridges, new railways, airports, etc are in fact short-term assets with disastrous benefits incurred in the longer term. A bit like plastic bottles…
Hammersmith bridge is simply a plan that’s finally come together in its totality after more than a century!
@ Rogerb on a high proportion of the dead load supporting the bridge’s own weight, I think the drastic weight limit is to do with what the heavier traffic does to the live loads up and down the chains. I occasionally whiled away childhood times under the north abutment waiting for double deckers on the No9 to cross over and feel the movement of the metalwork within reach overhead. It wasn’t just vibration, but appreciable rising up and down as the whole deck deflected (presumably in a wave motion that would set up alternating tensions and compression stresses in the chain links, particularly if they weren’t lubricated). My recollection is that the degree of deflection was comparable to standing astride the gap in the middle of Tower Bridge. Happy days.
Does anyone know if (or how) to make views known to TfL/LBHF that the bridge should progress to being for pedestrians, cyclists and perhaps emergency vehicles only?
Tim
What about buses?
The disabled/less-able/creaky or otherwise inconvenienced of our population are still very badly served, & having no buses across such a locally vital link ( OK They would have to be single-deckers ) would be perverse in the extreme.
@NickXBN
I seem to recall that the 1984 closure was caused by two heavy lorries crossing in quick succession which caused a wave big enough to lift the chains off their bearings in the south tower.
Re Timbeau,
1984 – correct as i understand it, the chain damage sustained was actually on the north side where the chains hadn’t moved but there was loss of tension.
The there are several sets of twisted or broken chain plates just to the north of the centre. The twists and repair defining the allowed loadings before the current closure.
Unfortunately people don’t seem to like taking photos of the repair to the broken links the best I can find quickly is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jza_photography/18209681374/in/photolist-e2Qgtv-eGZyP4-UNYzx2-eh7mYe-6iuXuB-qdrtC4-KBBBPA-62zypT-dZzp4b-eaXEgE-aVeNmt-dZtnGx-9zA8Zf-dyZiw1-f2D5RW-9wSg7F-kQEGLs-cd9MnL-njcEVM-fxZNSs-fpuGjH-62DMqy-62zxfD-nR6F8V-qfWtWU-DXwb1H-bxRWjB-bp9SYe-GKzSXX-pipLhL-kQEGJU-s5h2k1-dFxfrE-8XkcBp-dAe54K-GUpvw-bn3czD-2ajYYNz-ebqjhh-drfU1W-Q35cFu-zmdMhD-ehXPGk-4dvuoz-tK8nRG-nJUgWJ-LG7SH-eeTkWj-j7XtpA-29SYtfU/
The repair (with bracing) can be seen on the lower chain on the far side just on the camera side of centre.
Excellent research! Is there any chance that the bridge will be closed for pedestrians and bikes also at some stage of the repair work?
Sharma,
According the to LBH&F representative (leader of council ?) at the meeting in the video, the possibility that the bridge will have to be totally closed cannot be ruled out but they will do their best to avoid that.
Note that the pedestrian walkways do not permit cycling but they do not ban cycles being wheeled across so if they can get away with just closing the road (and even one of the walkways) that should not further hinder access too much.
As a resident of North Barnes for the last 36 years, I have been through the whole saga, closures, bombings, width restrictions, accidents, jammed artics, jumpers and re-openings.
I am a car driver, bus user, cyclist and pedestrian and I love the bridge.
How about this: dismantle the bridge and re-erect it 200 hundred yards upstream; from the park on the Middlesex bank to the towpath on the Surrey bank (cyclists and pedestrians only) and build a new bridge. Make it a toll bridge with automatic car reg charging, financed with a municipal bond/PFI, whatever – it has to take less than 4 years.
Jonathan Dyas,
Nice idea but you have fallen into the classic trap.
You can probably build it in less than four years but you can’t avoid consultations, design and finance issues English Heritage showing an interest and demanding reassurances (as is their job and they are entitled to do) and the fact that you would still have to sort out problems with the present bridge. These prerequisite issues would occupy a considerable length of time and probably more than four years on their own.
The built the Central London Railway, after a very long gestation period, of just two years. That was the easy bit.
It seems they’re all playing party politics over the bridge again rather than getting on with the actual job of finding a solution and talking properly to each other to ensure things like the bus stops have accurate information ( they still don’t ).
This has just appeared on the main Putney news site.
“A furious row has erupted over the issue of Hammersmith Bridge between Wandsworth and Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) borough Councils.
In a letter written by Cllr Wesley Harcourt, H&F’s cabinet member for the environment, to the Wandsworth Council leader, Ravi Govindia, a demand is made for the retraction of a statement published on the council’s web site and the removal of a video featuring Cllr Govindia which partly blamed the Labour controlled council for the situation.”
http://www.putneysw15.com/default.asp?section=info&page=issuehammersmithbridge008.htm
How much architectural and engineering merit does this bridge really have? It may be of interest to students of high Victorian gothic, but that does not necessarily mean it should be preserved at all costs if it’s not capable of doing it’s job. As a chain suspension bridge, and despite the signs, it is not almost unique in the UK, let alone the world, and arguably of far less importance than, say, Telford’s Conwy and Menai, or Brunel’s Clifton, bridges.
Maybe we need to take a decision about what the bridge is really for – is it primarily an historical artifact, or a functional transport link? If the latter, then it needs to be capable of accommodating both the volume and weight of modern traffic, and if the present bridge is not capable of doing that, then it should be replaced.
The question is surely whether we will need the Hammersmith Bridge as an all-traffic bridge in the twenty first century. Sadly the A4 is not going anywhere soon but limiting Hammersmith Bridge to pedestrians, cycles and possibly specialist local buses would (probably) simplify and reduce the cost of repair, allow redesign of the complex junction north of the Thames and take a lot of strain off Castelnau. It would direct cross river traffic to Chiswick Bridge and its approaches which are much better able to handle it. It would also send a clear signal to all that there is no merit in seeking to meet demand but rather that we should use all the evidence from elsewhere that traffic reduces with congestion (I suspect any real effects in Wandsworth are short rather than long term) as a basis for future decisions (and yes I am looking at you Silvertown Tunnel).
Two things spring to mind – One, TFL are raking in a million pounds a week (their figures) from the ULEZ fiddle – so in the three years repairs would take, they will have 1.5 times the extra income needed to pay for it.
Two, why not sell it to the Americans like the old London Bridge, and build something modern that can handle the traffic (preferably something functional without architectural prima donnas being involved)
@Bernie: What is it for? Surely its most important function is as a landmark for the Boat Race. If the bridge is replaced then it will be vital to retain the position of the second lamppost from the left.
This bridge is a lot smaller, but, could this be a possibioity for Hammersmith?
As always the problems are costs ( And, as we have seen argument over their allocation ) & catering for the intervening period.
@Greg
I’m not sure if Hammersmith bridge could be lifted out for offsite repair. Doesn’t a suspension bridge have to be assembled in-place? It can’t be craned in fully-assembled, as the tension will be all wrong.
Is there any reason that the whole of Hammersmith Bridge, as it stands now, couldn’t be carefully relocated to a park or garden somewhere?
There are plenty of places in the London area where a nice 250.5m long and 13.1m wide ornamental bridge would go nicely such as Chingford Plain, Trent Park, Burgess Park, The Chase (Elm Park) or Brockwell Park.
This would allow it to be carefully restored to preserve the work of Joseph Bazalgette in a cost-friendly way.
If this was the case, it would be straightforward to pre-fabricate a properly designed replacement off-site and just do a one-for-one swap onto the existing foundations. Clearly there needs to be a competition for the replacement.
The idea of moving the structure of a bridge elsewhere (whether a London park or the Arizona desert) reminds me of the way many countries have plinthed their steam locos (stuffed and mounted in a station forecourt). Whereas the UK has relatively few plinthed locos, but loads of working ones. (Not usually functioning as a means of necessary transport, unfortunately, but at least moving people and stuff from place to place).
If we can’t manage to keep a bridge serving its original function (or at least part of that function), then maybe we shouldn’t be keeping it at all.
Could the deck be replaced with something in more modern materials, supported on strengthened piers, with the towers and chains retained, supporting nothing except themselves, for decorative/cosmetic appearances?
Timbeau
Unfortunately, almost certainly not.
You would then have to support the new deck from underneath … which would present, shall we say “certain problems” …..
Dismantle it.
Build a new bridge.
You don’t have to dispose of the rubble in the Lee Navigation – that’s been done before.
As everyone argues about how to fix the bridge, TfL have announced more changes to the local buses including yet another new route following protests over the last round of changes.
This from https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/permanent-bus-changes?cid=permbuschanges
Route 209 – Rerouted
From Saturday 3 August route 209 will be changed with buses rerouted at Barnes High Street via Church Road, Barnes Red Lion and Castlenau to terminate at the south side of Hammersmith Bridge.
New route 378 – Rerouted
From Saturday 3 August new route 378 will be introduced between Mortlake, Avondale Road and Putney Bridge Station. Buses will run via Avondale Road, Mortlake High Street, The Terrace, Barnes Bridge Station, Barnes High Street, Church Road, Station Road, Mill Hill Road, Lower Richmond Road and Putney Bridge.
How can a new route be re-routed?
Is there any significance to the number 378, I wonder?
The Victorians wouldn’t have thought twice about this. Demolish and replace.
I am sentimental, and perhaps that has no place in discussions about transport infrastructure for a vibrant busy 21st Century city. However, even I have to admit having read a lot about this bridge, its problems, and then this article and the interesting replies, I am coming to the simple conclusion that the easiest thing to do is to replace this bridge.
The current bridge could be erected somewhere else, over a river, and I would have thought that they very act of dismantling and re-erecting elsewhere would allow for complete repairs to be carried out in a shorter time to allow it to continue to be useful.
One thing to note, which is that a comment is made early in the article about Tower Bridge being maintained. This is surely not correct – it was closed for two, near consecutive, periods not so long ago. The first for major, overdue repairs to an ill-maintained bridge, and the second when they realised that there was substantial damage to the framework of the piers, which they only realised near the end of the first set of works. However, this is only my recollection of news articles etc at the time, and many be shonky. Happy to be corrected.
I have attempted to obtain some feedback from Councillor Stephen Cowan of LBH&F by sending him the following …
Quote
1. Construct a dual carriageway tunnel to connect the Hogarth Roundabout with the A4 near Barons Court – The “fly-under”
2. Construct a second dual carriageway tunnel to connect the South Circular at Rocks Lane to the above “fly-under” using an underground interchange
…
Expensive? Yes … but the improvement to the transport infrastructure of the entire London area (rather than just LBH&F and Richmond/Barnes) should maximize potential sources of funding … and Hammersmith Bridge could be preserved for light traffic use only
Unquote
I will keep this blog appraised when/if I receive any reply … “A journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step”
@Anthony Collyer
The so-called ‘fly-under’ for Hammersmith is neither economically or environmentally worthwhile. Because of all the traffic that turns off and on to the A4 between Hogarth Roundabout and Barons Court, there is not enough traffic to justify the costs of such a long tunnel. There would still be a large volume of traffic that continued on the surface and round the Hammersmith gyratory so that the environmental benefits would be very limited indeed. Coupled with this, the environmental impact of the entry and exit ramps to the tunnel would cause very considerable community severance as they would need to be significantly long. A shorter tunnel, just underneath the gyratory itself, would carry significantly more traffic, but the impact of the entry/exit ramps would also be significantly greater. The proposal is a dead duck.
The issue of the entry/exit ramps, not to mention the costs, also sinks the second proposal. An underground interchange for roads could not conceivably be afforded on a bored tunnel basis and a cut-and-cover interchange would involve widespread disruption and significant housing loss. No elected politician could survive the fall-out today – they couldn’t when a similar scheme was proposed in 1989 when conditions for major road building in London were much more favourable.
‘Boriswatch’ did some analysis on the Hammersmith tunnel when reports were produced about 5 years ago (the links to the original reports don’t work any more).
LBH&F did a survey of their residents and the most popular option was to have the portals in neighbouring boroughs. Classic NIMBY.
For some reason, LBH&F didn’t ask residents of LB Hounslow and RBKC what they thought of the idea.
I agree it is a non-starter because of cost and it doesn’t actually solve the problems it claims to solve. There would still need to be surface roads because of the significant proportion of traffic that wouldn’t use the tunnel. The tunnel portals would arguably create more severance than the existing flyover.
… for some reason this website wouldn’t accept a comment containing a link to the Boriswatch articles on the Hammersmith tunnel.
Googling ‘Boriswatch Hammersmith flyunder’ should find it.
Given that Option A “Combined Hammersmith ‘Fly-under’ and tunnel(s) to the South Circular at Rocks Lane” is extremely expensive and unlikely to happen
Consider Option B. As per Nameless and RICOLAS (“The Victorians wouldn’t have thought twice about this. Demolish and replace.”) … Dismantle (and sell if possible, otherwise scrap, having made detailed photographs etc.) the existing bridge. Build a new very broad “smart” bridge. Four lanes for motor traffic plus two lanes for bicycles plus two 10 metre wide pedestrian walkways to connect with the Thames paths on the north and south banks. “smart” means automated colour-changing (green to red etc) road surface/lighting to allow three to one ratio motor traffic flows in morning and evening rush hours. Build the new bridge as an “homage” to the existing one …. with (possibly non-functional, purely decorative) towers etc. but to the highest modern construction standards … rather as the Quinian Terry development at Richmond … https://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/display/id/2167
… complements the original architecture …
@Anthony Collyer
I disagree with the “homage”bit.
Give the engineers a proper specification and a clean slate as to design.
There could be a competition for most popular appearance but this cannot be a lengthy process.
Get it done.
“Four lanes for motor traffic ”
Let’s not go mad – it’s still got to feed in to Castelnau at one end, and Hammersmith Bridge Road at the other: neither of which are wide enough for four lanes. A northbound bus lane might be good though.
FWIW … here is the feedback just received from LBH&F regarding Option One …
Quote
Dear Mr Collyer,
Thank you again for your recent email.
Cllr Cowan has raised this with officers and has asked me to share with you the response he’s received below from Graham Burrell, Projects and Development Manager.
Response
The question of the flyunder is an active proposal and is referenced in both the Council’s Local Plan published in 2018 and in our new transportation policy document, the “Local Implementation Plan – LIP 3” approved in April, 2019.
Our transportation policy document (LIP 3) notes that the flyunder will contribute to the provision of new homes and jobs in Hammersmith Town Centre by improving air quality, reducing the domination of traffic and severance between the centre and the river, and releasing land for development. It also indicates the very broad range of likely cost of between £218 million to £1.7 billion depending on the length of option chosen. We will be engaging on the details of this with all our stakeholders as we progress this. Mr. Collyer’s further ideas are therefore very welcome.
The council is currently preparing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Hammersmith which promotes regeneration of the town centre and includes reference to the proposed flyunder. The draft SPD is expected to be published for consultation in Autumn 2019 and we will be actively seeking feedback on the draft document from residents, businesses and other stakeholders. We will of course let you know when the SPD is published for consultation.
Should you need any further help or information please get in touch.
Kind regards
Natasha Joseph
Leader’s Office Manager
Leader’s Office
Hammersmith & Fulham Council
Unquote
@TIMBEAU “Four lanes for motor traffic ” could mean two bus lanes in each direction & two other motorised lanes /one bus lane & three other motorised lanes etc. as required assuming (!) the “smart” bridge control is programmed correctly
The mollifying response from the leader of LBH&F cannot disguise the fact that the flyunder will not reduce traffic in Hammersmith Gyratory under any circumstances and the entry/exit ramps will always increase severance between Hammersmith town centre and the river. You would do far better looking at traffic reduction measures.
I hope they put some lovely trees and plants on it. Perhaps it could be hired out in the evening for soirees? And pay for its upkeep? I think there’s a design for a lovely garden bridge in a drawer somewhere! 😉
@SOUTHERN HEIGHTS
… and with the 10 metre wide pedestrian walkways there would be enough room for temporary grandstands to be erected on Boat Race Day … ticket sales from this would also contribute to the bridge’s upkeep.. kerching!
Very interesting article however you have centered all your thoughts on the people of Barnes. You state that ‘Hammersmith Bridge is not the most important bridge over the Thames and its closure does not affect that many people.’ i beg to disagree.
I have lived in Roehampton for 35 years have worked in Hammersmith for 23 years. There are a lot of new properties built in Roehampton over the years that have been sold to commuters on the basis that they are one bus away from Hammersmith (72) this is no longer the case (72 no longer goes to Roehampton). There are a lot of workers in Roehampton that now have a round about trip to make putting up to an extra 3 hours onto our day due to travel.
Those that do not mind walking the bridge still have to get a bus to Barnes station then another bus to the bridge those of us that are not brave enough to walk it have to go via Putney.
The cost of travel has increased also. According to our London mayor if you use an oyster twice within an hour you get charged once. I am yet to see that as my travel costs have increased greatly regardless of getting a 430 to Lily Road and walking to Hammersmith from there.
Please do not forget us in Roehampton we are suffering the closure just as much as the wealthy residents of Barnes if not more at times.
@JACKY WOOD
I’m wondering why you aren’t using the 220 and 265 (changing bus at Putney Bridge stops FD/FE) 41 minute bus routes to get from Roehampton to Hammersmith.
The Oyster “Hopper” charge for buses is actually an unlimited number of bus tap-ins for £1.50, but they have to be bus (or tram) touch ins. You don’t get a free tap-in for a tube or train journey.
* Londonist has a video of 25 Hopper touch-ins.
…just to point out that the bridge is only closed to motor traffic.
From, say, University of Roehampton to Hammersmith Broadway is under 3 miles, about 15 minutes pootle on a bike and is free. The journey along Castelnau Rd and over the bridge itself is very pleasant indeed.
@Jacky Wood: An extra 3 hours????? I guess you must travel by car… Oh dear!
And actually the most important bridge in London is The Blackwall tunnell…
Slightly off piste, Cambridge has a traffic problem with the Science Park to the north and lots of new housing to the south with limited river crossing opportunities. Rather than attempt to build a new road bridge over the Cam they are building a new cycle bridge and related cycle superhighway, the Chisholm Trail, which will provide a strong incentive to cycle rather than drive.
@Jacky Wood and responses
To be fair, this situation must be incredibly frustrating for those affected in this way. Not everyone is able to cycle their commute, and extended journey times means more stress on individuals and families who probably don’t need it.
According to multiple sources, Roehampton High Street to Hammersmith over the bridge is about a 3.5 mile, 70 minute walk. If commuting by bus is taking an extra 3 hours per day because of peak time traffic, which I could well believe if you’re talking about Fulham Palace Road, maybe it’s time to give up and walk it? If you don’t want to walk the whole way the 265 and /or 33 could help.
+1 for just get on and replace it (with enough width for 1 general lane each way plus N-bound bus lane; bike lanes each direction and reasonably wide pavements).
As much as I love to cycle and think we all need to reduce personal car usage (and move away from vans to cargo bikes), the option of leaving Hammersmith Bridge as walk & cycle only (with nothing else for cars/vans/lorries/buses between Chiswick and Putney bridges) is just not feasible – there’ll always be a need for a certain amount of larger vehicles.
Let’s just get on and replace it with something fit for purpose. Even if fully repaired, it is inadequate. There’s bound to be somewhere fitting for the original to end up!
RG
Fully concur … but
Two problems: Time & Costs
How longwill it take to carefully dismantle the existing bridge & carry it to where someone wants it …
AND build a new bridge,
Compared to
“Simply” rebuilding the existing with stronger internal & external supports
How much would each of the above options cost?
And, of course, how long will it take the interested parties: LBH&F / LBR / TfL /DfT to make up their minds what they actually want & agree on it – which will also cost, because the longer you wait, the more expensive it will be.
Had another visit today.
The situation seems to have stabilised. Signposting and barriers are a bit better laid out. I got the impression that the bus service was a bit more sensible in general.
It was a sunny day which may have influenced matters but the bridge was extremely well used by pedestrians. There were plenty of cyclists too but not as many as I would have expected. It seems that motorbikes are allowed provided the engine is switched off and they are pushed. The motorcyclists seem to have learnt to dismount and push it past the steward at each end but surreptitiously ride it across the centre of the bridge.
One enterprising person had an electric cycle-rickshaw and was advertising a shuttle service across the bridge to Hammersmith Station for £2.
The 533 bus between Lonsdale Road (south side of the bridge) and Hammersmith bus station seems somewhat problematic. The timetable would appear fictional due to traffic. The time allowed off-peak is 20 mins but it took 40 going towards Hammersmith bus station and, judging by the traffic, would have taken even longer in the other direction. There is no way of predicting when it will turn up unless you have a mobile phone and are comfortable looking up the next bus on it. The journey I took was well-used at both ends of the route but there were only nine people on the bus in the middle of the journey.
Chiswick Bridge, or more precisely Chalker’s Corner, seemed hard hit by the extra traffic but it is hard to be sure without knowing what it was like when Hammersmith Bridge was open.
Update on the repair costs and timescales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49564267
Timbeau
So …. b.o.f-p. estimate of £120m ….
Cost of nice new bridge & careful removal-to-safe-&-pretty place of old one?
The Hammersmith & Fulham council version of the update talks of strengthening the bridge so it can take the heavier single deck electric buses. It does not mention double deckers which had been planned for the 72.
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/2019/09/work-begins-repair-hammersmith-bridge
In separate Hammersmith Bridge news, bus 419 is being re-routed again, this time to give Roehampton back its link to the bridge. The change happens September 28th.
i suppose they could always hike up our council tax and get us to pay for the repairs.
Someone has just come up with a very pretty idea for a temporary ( Up to 10 years ) bridge.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the inhabitants of “Queen Caroline Street” ( At the N end )are not going to be in favour, to say the least …..
I love those “temporary” bridges, reminds me of the one in Antwerp near the Opera that was there for half a century….
@Greg – agreed that a temporary road bridge would be pretty controversial.
As much as I prefer complete replacement with something slightly wider (so as to include wider pavements and space for bike lanes), I agree with your comment above that there are significant practical hurdles so repair of the original is prob the best end goal.
Since the bridge in its current state can support walking and cycling, what about a lightweight temporary bridge for just walking and cycling, for the duration of the repair job? This wouldn’t cause a gross inconvenience to QCS, or require much space for approaches, but would allow HB to be closed fully, which must surely reduce the cost (by at least the cost of the temp bridge) and duration of the repair work, quite significantly. I’m sure such things are done as a matter of routine elsewhere – why not here?
The saga of Walton Bridge is another example, where a temporary replacement was erected in 1953 to partially replace the previous bridge, which had been damaged in 1940 by enemy action. (The old bridge remained in use for cyclists and pedestrians until 1985). The temporary bridge lasted sixty years, although by 1999 it had become too weak for modern traffic and was augmented by a second temporary structure even more ugly than the first. Both were replaced in 2013 by the present rather elegant bridge.
@RG
In the Netherlands I have used temporary cycle bridges put in for works. One extraordinary temporary bridge crossed over about 12 lanes of the N213 and its slip roads at Westerlee near Hook of Holland, while the N223/N213 highway junction was being remodelled. It was of scaffolding kind of construction. And of course, there was an entire system of well-signposted diversions even this foreigner could follow. I encountered several other major infrastructure works on my cycling in the Netherlands, and there were all thoroughly prepared for continuing traffic in this way, though sometimes you discovered the impediment some time before you discovered the facility to enable you to get past it.
If you want numerous people to travel by active modes, you have to treat them with the same consideration you apply to motorised modes. This involves understanding the practical realities of the behaviour of normal people in encountering such obstacles. In most cases, you can just carry on by the same route with a short dismount, and roadworkers could facilitate this if they understood it, rather than putting up their standard “road closed go away” sign.
You don’t have to go far from Hammersmith Bridge — in fact it will be on your diversionary route via Chiswick Bridge — to see a temporary (48-year-old) bridge over Hogarth roundabout: “more than just a bridge carrying traffic … a metaphor for the whole of British transport planning in the late 20th century.” (roads.org.uk)
LBHF has had all the decades since it acquired responsibility for the bridge to set up a repair/rebuild fund, or to hand it over to some other authority who would. It was clear to anyone who bounced across on the number 9 bus in the 1970s that the bridge was inadequate and needed to be replaced. The council makes a fine income from confused visitors with its tortuous parking zones and from policing its poorly designed junctions but it was more important to paint “20” on the roads instead.
Contrary to the original posting, LBHF residents are also affected, through traffic diverting via Putney and Wandsworth bridges and the resulting difficulty of access to the south of the river. Cllr Cowan may calculate that affected residents, mostly in Fulham, won’t withdraw support from his party since they didn’t support it anyway.
Today’s news (Evening Standard, p25) is that LBHF rejected the Beckett Rankine temporary bridge proposal, ostensibly because of space and cost issues. While these are important, what they and TFL want to avoid more than anything is a working river crossing that they would be under pressure to maintain or replicate after recommissioning the obsolete failed antique bridge.
By way of update:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hammersmith-bridge-repairs-begin-on-fractured-pedestals-04-11-2019/
“The council has now ruled out building a temporary road bridge proposed by marine engineering firm Beckett Rankine, however New Civil Engineer understands that a temporary cycling and pedestrian link (https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hammersmith-bridge-replacement-cycling-link-preferred-to-temporary-road-bridge-30-10-2019/) is being explored as a means of clearing Hammersmith Bridge to speed up repairs.”
At last a degree of sense. As the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to motor traffic starts to extend beyond six months, traffic patterns and traffic levels will start to settle down in a world without the Bridge. Some of the extra congestion initially experienced will disappear. And maybe that will persuade all the politicians not to re-open Hammersmith Bridge to traffic once it has been repaired.
TfL orders detailed design of a temporary Hammersmith Bridge pedestrian link, according to New Civil Engineer:
“Transport for London (TfL) has confirmed that designs for a temporary pedestrian link across the River Thames in West London will be finalised by October, while work is carried out to repair Hammersmith Bridge. As revealed by NCE in November last year, TfL has tasked consultant Pell Frischmann to draw up detailed designs for a temporary cycling and pedestrian crossing adjacent to Hammersmith Bridge.
“TfL board agenda papers published ahead a today’s board meeting now reveal that TfL expects final designs to be completed by October. The minutes also reveal that £10M has already been spent on feasibility studies, monitoring and early repairs to Hammersmith Bridge, with a further £15M to be spent on the project during the next financial year (2020-21). A TfL spokesperson added that concept designs for the temporary structure are expected to be ready by April.
“Pell Frischmann has been tasked with designing the temporary structure as part of its brief to design repairs to the bridge, working alongside contractors Freyssinet, Costain and Mabey. Pell Frischmann transport infrastructure director Sas Majlessi confirmed that sites to the east of Hammersmith Bridge were being explored as locations for the demountable bridge, when speaking to NCE last year…”
For those following the saga, there was a debate on the bridge in Westminster Hall last week.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2020-03-03a.215.0&s=hammersmith+bridge#g219.0
Thanks AP.
Link https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2020-03-03a.215.0 might be slightly better (avoids yellow highlighting)
Highlights from that deabte:
Baroness Vere has agreed to meet me, the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the two borough council leaders most affected on 9 March.
– which is today. The result of that meeting will certainly be of interest.
…. opened in 1887, but its piers are still those of the original 1827 bridge
Did we know this, previously? I note that replacing the piers is not under consideration.
IF[ my emphasis } the Department for Transport accepts that the bridge is part of the strategic road network, it has to reopen to at least its previous capacity to cover single-decker electric buses, as well as similar weights of general vehicle traffic as previously.
.. yes well maybe, maybe not.
I would have thought that “NO HGV’s” should be a no-brainer under the circumstances, in fact, apart from buses, nothing over 5 tonnes at all.
New Civil Engineer has published a designs and preliminary renderings of the temporary cycling and pedestrian bridge to run alongside Hammersmith Bridge ahead of a key planning meeting later this week.
“As revealed by NCE in November last year, TfL tasked consultant Pell Frischmann to draw up detailed designs for a temporary cycling and pedestrian crossing adjacent to Hammersmith Bridge, while repair work is carried out to the Victorian structure.
“Alternative plans for a £5M temporary road and cycle bridge parallel to the 133-old-year structure were tabled by marine engineering consultant Beckett Rankine last October, but were rejected by TfL, Hammersmith & Fulham Council and Richmond Council.
“Richmond Council is to consider the plans for the temporary cycling and pedestrian structure on Thursday this week.”
And, now the signs are even worse existing cracks are widening & new ones may be appearing.
I fear & suspect that the old bridge may, now, be past repair.
If so, expect at least a year of futile wrangling about what to do about a new bridge, more’s the pity.
Update:
Pedestrian river walkways under the bridge-ends & all river traffic under the bridge are now banned.
From the BBC news:
“A critical piece of London’s infrastructure cannot be allowed to crumble into the Thames, while the government and London mayor wrangle over responsibility for the funding.” – quote.
And: Transport for London has financed the first £25m of the repair project but the main funding source has yet to be decided. – “Will it ever?”
The work is expected to take three years to complete.
Of course, one of the more tricky biits is something noted back in the original article – it is Grade II* listed.
So, a rebuild/remove/replace decision has to be agreed betewwen, at least the following:
“Hammersmith” council, “Richmond” council, Tfl, GLA, DfT, Historic England & probably a minimum of one “government” minister.
It really does not look good, does it?
[ And yes, I have a proposal, but now is not the time or place at the moment. ]
Update from the “Standard”
I’m depressed to see that I was correct, & that the politicians are busy blaming each other …..
@GregT expected you to reference this-
Bridges including the A40 Westway, Vauxhall Bridge, and Lambeth Bridge all require major renewals, for which TfL currently does not have the funds. The Rotherhithe Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnel have also been identified by TfL as needing major work.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/more-london-bridges-could-face-restrictions-due-to-tfl-cash-woes-17-08-2020/
Aleks
Thanks for that – oh dear.
So London/TfL are deperately short of cash for multiple essential river crossings. And, we have a London Mayor & an ex-London Mayor ( Now PM ) who loathe each other & whom both seem more interested in point-scoring that getting any useful jobs of work done.
What could possibly go wrong?
You have ignored the fact that the pla (port of london authority) have banned all river traffic from going under the bridge. All the passenger boats are stuck on one side or other of the bridge, plus a lot of private craft.
[Moderator’s note: Would commenters please check earlier comments, and also remain civil. Nobody has ignored anything. The original article was written about the closure to motor traffic, and related issues. At that time river traffic was unaffected. Much more recently, there has been an emergency closure to all traffic, including river traffic under the bridge. As it happens, Greg T did pass on the news about this more recent action, and he did mention river traffic (on 13th August). London Reconnections has no aspiration to be a news service, though it is quite in order to make polite, appropriate and relevant comments about any new developments. Malcolm]
Oh dear – it would appear … that the politicians have managed to, erm “cock it up” again.
Meanwhile, of course, the chaos continues.
A “Modest Proposal”
Since Hammersmith Bridge is a listed structure – & it is very pretty indeed, & we don’t actually want or need one that will take anything heavier than 5 tonnes, unless it’s a single bus at a time.
And, because it’s in such a dangerous condition …
Take it down, carefully, & erect an exact replica, made with modern materials & structural strengths.
A temporary foot-&cycle crossing to be put up, whilst this is done.
Probably simpler & cheaper ( In the long run ) than all the current shenanigans.
Of course, if it is that dodgy, structurally, the current bridge may solve all our problems, by simply falling down in the first winter gale (!)
Or is my suggestion too easy & simple for politicians to grasp?
Heidi Alexander has tweeted a lengthy chronology of events from her point of view. Her key points are that it took from August last year until March this year for Ministers to agree to have a meeting with the relevant bodies on the bridge; that TfL and City Hall have submitted 3 bids for funding for repairs/replacement of the bridge without success; and that without government funding nothing will happen – TfL gets no roads funding it all, apart from congestion charge, roads expenditure is funded from passenger fares income on public transport and LB H&F are plain skint.
Quinlet
For everyone else, Ms Alexander’s tweets are here: https://twitter.com/Heidi_LDN/status/1302205871603306496?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Disgraceful business, isn’t it?
Very critical op-ed piece on this
Health warning – “Daily Mail” – but even so….
And now a government task force including Network Rail to find a way ahead…
“The “minimum” aim was to get it swiftly reopened to pedestrians and cyclists – but to traffic in the longer term, the Government said.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hammersmith-bridge-taskforce-a4543671.html
Statement today from Port Authority. Nothing definite, but appears some work behind the scenes is underway for temporary ferry.
https://www.pla.co.uk/Port-of-London-Authority-statement-Hammersmith-Bridge
The photo in the Port of London piece shows just how challenging sorting out a ferry would be. The tide appears to go out to a very long way off the Middlesex bank. A pier that long would be well on the way to half of a temporary bridge’s worth.
@Nickbxn – the river is closed to navigation so does not need piers, just temporary walkway up the mud with a cage to ferry walkers, bikes etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_ferry#/media/File:Cable_Ferry.jpg
The task force, set up by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps last month, chaired by roads minister Baroness Vere, said a ferry service will not be in place until “early next year”.
Cambridge professor Norman Fleck, a mechanics and materials expert, is join the advisers to the group.
“All other potential solutions, including a temporary bridge, remain under consideration to ensure the fastest possible resolution for those impacted by the closure of the bridge.”
Why does it need to be on the water, with potential falling debris? The crossing is short enough for a cable suspended platform transporter.
Update
“Ferry service to be provided” – as part of the government’s conditions for the TFL bail-out, apparenly.
A really good article on the ongoing Hammersmith Bridge saga, which also looks at the state of similar infrastructure, in the Guardian’s London’s bridges are falling down
@LONG BRANCH MIKE
The most interesting point in that article is that no-one thought to re-assign the bridges that had been taken from the GLC to the GLA/Mayor when Mrs T’s petulance was reversed.
It is odd that PM Blair didn’t see that there was an obvious Tragedy Of the Commons in the making, even for the tiny number of people (10,000 of 9,304,000) who live in Barnes.
Brian Butterworth,
Even odder when you consider that this potential problem-in-the-making was bound to create big problems for Labour controlled Hammersmith & Fulham.
Like a lot of things recently, the exact nature of a future problem might not be predictable but the fact that it will manifest itself in some form would have been clear to anyone prepared to look ahead and be realistic. I think the fact that many of London’s bridges over the Thames were going to need a lot of money in future was predicable and a particular precedent had been set with Albert Bridge (in the 1980s ?) If any bridge was going to have a big problem Hammersmith was the most likely. It was almost certainly the one with the greatest consequences despite being single lane in each direction.
LBM – thanks for spotting the same article! 😁
“A Modest Proposal”
There already exists a statutory body, with very long experience in dealing with the care & maintenance of Thames Bridges. And, as both BB & PoP say, there is more of this to come, with predictable results.
May I therefore propose that, within the bounds of the GLA area, all Thames Bridges be given over to the care of The Bridge House Estates ( And, therefore the Corporation ) together with a suitable permanent government grant, for their upkeep, maintenance & renewal?
Greg T,
But Greg, your idea does not address the fundamental problem which is funding. Getting the funding for the bridges is the big issue. Who administers it is less of an issue.
Personally, I think the Bridges Trust is a bad idea (and not acceptable to the government) because it doesn’t seem to be answerable to anyone except a few City of London aldermen. A separate trust could be set up with suitable accountability or it could be simply administered by TfL – with suitable ring-fencing of funds.
The next problem would be a political one of how to use central funds without getting an accusation from the North that this is yet again giving London preference. Normally, this could be swept away, but with a government anxious to present its equalising agenda in good light, this would be hard at present. So, until you tackle the broader issue for the whole country (England at any rate), you can’t fully tackle the problem of Hammersmith Bridge.
Not my area of expertise, but aren’t the bridges just an extension of the roads in London where responsibilities are split. I know some are managed by TfL and some by Boroughs. Are any managed by Highways England?
I would have thought that management of/responsibility for a bridge was part of the responsibility for the road that runs over it!
100andthirty,
I would have thought that management of/responsibility for a bridge was part of the responsibility for the road that runs over it!
It is! But there is a problem. The cost of maintaining a road is generally predictable and is the sort of thing you can budget for. The cost repairing Hammersmith bridge is way beyond what a local borough in London can afford. It basically got lumbered with it. Because it straddles the borough boundary (the Thames) it could have instead been the responsibility of Richmond. In fact that would have made more sense because it is more use to the people of Barnes (in Richmond borough) than it is to Hammersmith. Because the road isn’t a red route, TfL are not responsible for it even though it is (was) a major bus route.
To draw an Underground analogy, it is a bit like expecting the line manager of a tube line to fund major stations upgrades. Imagine what it would be like if London Underground if the Northern line manager was expected to fund the upgrade of Camden Town station from Northern line funds. And that after having to pay for the bulk of the cost of Bank Station Upgrade.
To clarify the Bridge House Estates are responsible for the five bridges into the City of London. They are funded by previous tolls on London Bridge, the rents and leases of the buildings that were on it and also by charitable donations. They also developed an extensive property portfolio from the later schemes.
Will the replacement Hammersmith ferry be tolled? If crossings in the east are to be tolled why not then those in the west. With increasing road charges in London surely a ‘profitable’ bridge will become an asset rather than an unwanted liability.
ALEKS,
Interesting question about whether the ferry will be tolled. I have always assumed not. Politically it would be a really hard sell. And those in the west are going to point to the Woolwich Free Ferry in the east. This is not really comparable I know but that won’t stop tremendous opposition to any proposal. Also, we know that the ferry will provide a further dent in TfL’s budget which TfL is committed to absorb – as part of a treasury agreement. So, in the unlikely event of being tolled, it is expected to run at a significant loss.
Tentative suggestions have been made for a chargeable repaired bridge. Presumably for motor vehicles only. At the start this would have been unthinkable but the money problem is so intractable that those involved are very reluctantly suggesting it might be a way forward.
PoP
As a matter of interest & information, I’ve collated “who owns what” ( Or who is responsible ) for all the road bridges in London. As you imply – what a mess! [ BHEst = Bridge House Estates, a.k.a The Corporation ]
Tower – BHEst
London – BHEst
Southwark – BHEst
Blackfriars – BHEst
Waterloo – TfL
Westminster – TfL
Lambeth – TfL
Vauxhall – TfL
Chelsea – Kensington & Chelsea Council
Albert – Kensington & Chelsea Council
Battersea – TfL
Wandsworth – Wandsworth Council
Putney – Wandsworth Council
Hammersmith – Under discussion here ( Hammersmith Council )
Chiswick – TfL
Kew – TfL
Twickenham – Tfl
Richmond – Richmond Council
Kingston – Kingston Council
Hampton Court – Surrey County Council
I would also suspect, given this, er, “problem” that some other London Councils are worried about their potential financial liabilities, regarding bridges in their care?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
***********
I’m also going to take very slight issue with one remark of yours:
but the money problem is so intractable – because it is emphatically not a money problem, it’s a political one.
Greg T
It is a political problem but the underlying cause in this case is money. Political problems manifest themselves in many different ways.
@PoP Have not seen the ferry working proposals but surely capacity will be limited and therefore rationed?
The Thames Ferry crossings – what are the tolls?
Shepperton to Weybridge Ferry
Hampton to Moulsey Ferry
Hammerton’s Twickenham to Ham House Ferry – £1
Hammersmith to Barnes proposed Ferry
Canary Wharf to Rotherhithe Ferry
Woolwich to North Woolwich Free Ferry
Gravesend to Tilbury Ferry
@Aleks
The Canary Wharf to Rotherhithe Ferry is River Bus route RB4, single journey is £4.50 (less with a TravelCard), but free if one stays at the DoubleTree Docklands Hotel at the west/south bank.
TfL are arranging the ferry contract not the council.
Favourite is the Clipper running from the Harrods repository to an undetermined point as yet on the north bank. Indicative capacity of 800 passengers per hour at a fare of £1.55 to run for 7 years.
Thanks Aleks. Do you have a source for this?
@LBM todays press.
https://harrodswharf.com
website for a southern landing includes waiting shelters and toilets with disabled access.
There are 2 possibilities being evaluated on the north, the one with better disabled access ironically would require relocating a disabled rowing club.
Harrods Ferry Terminal Planning application
http://www2.richmond.gov.uk/Plandata2/Planning_CaseNo.aspx?strCASENO=20/3185/FUL
Fulham Reach Boat (Rowing) Club charity nearest pontoon with ramp access
https://allmark.one/blogs/uk-circuit/hammersmith-bridge-ferry-impact-on-the-rowing-community
The other mentioned site was Riverside Studios which has a slipway up to Queen Caroline St but that was when a DUKW amphibian was still an option.
Already more than 3,500 comments have been made with 850 objections lodged with Richmond Council ahead of the planning decision on using Harrods Wharf as a ferry terminal on the south side of the river.
The boat club has not been approached about use of their pontoon but relocating them would be costly.
Harrods Wharf is large enough to process tickets for both departures and arrivals.
Aleks
Sigh: “We desperately need a ferry – but NOT here” ( NIMBY )
I can see why some politicians get exasperated, sometimes!
The cost of patching up London’s ageing bridges and tunnels soars by more than 700% in the last five years, according to TfL.
“In total, Transport for London (TfL) spent £2.5M on implementing interim measures to its road tunnels and bridges during the last year, with a further £2.38M spent on reactive safety measures, agenda papers released ahead of next week’s Programmes and Investment Committee meeting reveal (see table below for year-by-year breakdown).
“TfL attributes this increase to delays and budget cuts to its Surface Transport Assets Renewal Programme, which includes major repair work to structures including the Rotherhithe Tunnel, A40 Westway, Vauxhall Bridge and Hammersmith Bridge.”
And … if you think this is bad, it appears that the people of the USA have a much bigger but similar problem.
The “Interstate Highway 40” bridge over the Mississippi River at Memphis has “cracks” ( Actual broken beams, in fact.)
More details Here – NY Times article, so open incognito to view
That looks quite serious.
As Greg has pointed out to me:
In line with their apparent policy of “levelling the country up” by denigrating & defunding London, this BBC News comment gives a short summary.
I would add that it is hard to see this really ending well until the government accept that the current arrangements for the bridge (devised in Margaret Thatcher’s time when she was determined to abolish the GLC) are really at the heart of this. What makes this worse is that around £50 million is an awful lot of money for Hammersmith & Fulham to find – especially when the bridge is of very little importance to its residents and much more important to the residents of the London Borough of Richmond.
I learnt in school how main roads were originally the responsibility of the parish they ran through and how that didn’t work hence the introduction of turnpike roads. It seems, as always, history is forgotten.
Londonist is reporting that the bridge has now reopened to pedestrians and cyclists, and they’re allowing boats underneath it again: https://londonist.com/london/transport/hammersmith-bridge-open-cyclists-pedestrians
Update
Plans for a ferry have now been dropped
More in this article
And now yet another bizarre twist.
Hammersmith Bridge wrapped in foil during heatwave.