Authentic Stenson bridge repair makes me wonder about BW priorities and intentions

Next week BW is giving a press tour of the rebuilding of Hicklins Bridge No. 20, near Stenson on the Trent & Mersey Canal.  This is the accommodation bridge that partly collapsed in October 2008 when a tractor trailer fell off it.

Original BBC Derby report (inc video) of the collapse here.

Canalplan photos by John Howarth (showing Hicklins bridge immediately after the canal had reopened) here.

British Waterways is going to inordinate lengths to restore the 240-year-old bridge, ensuring it looks as authentically 18th Century as possible, as the press release explains:

The restoration of the listed structure is being managed by May Gurney, a national infrastructure services company, and will involve the use of traditional materials and repair techniques. A number of bricks from the collapsed sections were recovered and will be used in the repair along with locally sourced bricks which have been carefully selected to provide an exact match with the original brickwork. Bespoke sandstone copings have also been produced to rebuild the bridge parapet, ensuring the structure is sympathetically restored. 

Lime mortar specialists will also be involved in the project following strict listed building consent guidelines and British Waterways’ own heritage standards. Lime mortar, which is quite different from many modern cement mixes, was originally used to build the bridge during the 1800’s due to its durable and permeable properties.

The rebuilt bridge deck will also benefit from concrete reinforcements to increase load bearing capacity and help prevent a similar collapse from happening again in the future.

Since I live nearby, after the original press visit was cancelled a couple of weeks ago I walked up to the site and chatted to the workers there, including the project manager.

BW isn't bulling. They really are pulling out the stops to restore this bridge to look as familiar as the one Brindley would have known.  And what Brindley wouldn't recognise of the restoration will be hidden.

It's hard for Granny to argue with BW's responsibility as the 'third largest owner of listed structures in the UK'.  Why, this site will be a largely metric-free zone (!) and the result will be testament to the marriage of industrial archaeology with modern civil engineering.

(The project manager told me he thought it would be much easier and cheaper to dismantle the whole thing and rebuild it from scratch.  But his orders are to leave as much as possible of the original structure in place and patch it up.  He also marvelled at how a single layer of bricks could have borne all the agricultural traffic over the years, and pondered over the extra reinforcing that will have to be incorporated invisibly.)

And yet... compare this bridge rebuild with another one needed right now on the Grantham Canal.  ('Mission impassable: the Highways Agency threat that could ruin the Grantham Canal restoration').  Is this really the right priority for the waterways?

The full restoration of the Grantham Canal is under threat because BW failed to get representation at the planning stage for a canal bridge on an approach road to the new A46 road.  They cited shortage of money.   The extra cost of the Grantham bridge might be £500,000 now, or an impossible £10million in five years time. 

In the case of Hicklins Bridge I can't help feeling that spending so much money on repairing such a minor feature is an extravagance. The blunt truth is that across the canal network there are hundreds of such traditional Georgian accommodation bridges crumbling in the middle of nowhere, many of them far prettier and in more delightful settings. And this particular bridge, set in an s-bend of the canal, is only visible from a furlong away, if that.

See also: Overcrowded, crumbling canals (Sept 2008, just a month before the collapse of Hicklins Bridge No.20). 

Here's the bridge on Google Maps, pre-collapse:

View Larger Map

If you look closely at what this bridge was like BEFORE the collapse (see the uncollapsed side below), you'll wonder why it's been singled out for such princely treatment.  Like many other it's been patched roughly and economically over the years - for example the modern brickwork and rough, round cement coping on top.

What was the cheapest option for replacing the bridge?  I mean, one that kept it stable for tractor traffic, perhaps just using concrete beams.  BW haven't said.  Perhaps its because they want you to praise the 'authenticity' of the restoration, and a much cheaper modern option, with money left over, would detract from the praise.

And yet there may be deft method in this madness.  It might be that BW are using this bridge as a 'poster boy' for heritage - to hold it up as an example of how much it costs to maintain all these listed original canal structures. 

This extravagant restoration might just be a crafty manoeuvre by British Waterways to explain to its paymasters why it needs more money.

Comments

[Andrew Denny]

Bruce, 

No, I didn't know about it being an insurance issue, and the things you mention are new to me.  I wouldn't dream of asking BW to comment on something I've written.  I already sound too self-important! 

 

I'm not setting out to be a news or editorial site, nor authoritative.  I'm simply one guy commenting in the saloon bar.  My main claim to pretension is that I hope it inspires futher thought and comment. A seed or a spark, if you like.

 

 Andrew

[Bruce Napier]

It was said at the time that the insurer was paying; the driver had been instructed to use a different bridge, so it's an open and shut case.

Did you ask BW to comment on your post?

Bruce

[Mike]

Back on your report on Challenger & Ed Rimmer, you wondered "I don't think a narrowboat shared ownership scheme has collapsed before, so it will be interesting to see how the dust settles on this."

Here's one of the outcomes...
http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/databases/ddirector/viewdisqdirectorcasedetails2.asp?compno=03444668

A 10 year disqualification from being a director.

[Andrew Denny]

Martin: Well, I haven't seen any comments anywhere as to who's to blame. Was it a trailer 'strike' of the parapet, or just a collapse of a 230 year old bridge?

[Martin Clark]

If the farmer was using a vehicle that was too large and too heavy for the bridge then I would expect his insurance company to foot the bill and not BW. Why on earth should this become another opportunity to give BW a kick?

[Andrew Denny]

Peter: I haven't seen BW say that the tractor driver's insurer is contributing. Indeed, they might counterclaim to get BW to pay for a new tractor/trailer!

After all, if a road bridge collapsed under you, you might not be happy to have the Highways Agency try to pin the blame on you.

[Peter]

Will it not be that the tractor driver's insurance that has to pay for all of this?

If so, may as well get the job done properly!

[Andrew Denny]

Bruce: Well they seem to be quite proud of it, instead of protesting at the diversion of resources. Why is it left to peripheral individuals like myself to try to start the debate?

[Bruce Napier]

But these days, they don't have a choice; it's a listed structure. Presumably the old repairs were done under a less demanding regime.

You should see what WRG has to go through in similar circs.

ATB

Bruce