The LNER Encyclopedia

This is a local news item, I think I will start to walk over the river!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7953998.stm

If the authorities are genuinely worried on this score then surely technology is the answer in the shape of speed cameras.Voluntary restraint seldom works. In my area a 44 ton lorry was recently clocked going through single lane road works,contraflow and diversions -speed limit 30 mph - at 56 m.ph. By the way the driver was local and so could not claim unfamiliarity with the area.

This is such rubbish! How is it that its alright for Buses and taxis to cross but not cars???? Are double decker buses lighter than cars ? I think not! When it reopened they should have left it for cars only. There is room for cars to pass each other but obviously the bus companies complained and they got virtualy all the us of the bridge. This may seem abit of a rant but i think its a story out of nothing!

Agreed Trestrol, there are enforcement cameras situated under the upper decking in the centre of the bridge which monitor traffic, its seems both Gateshead & Newcastle are anti car as they both have done as much as possible to make the roads user unfriendly but they still want you to shop there.
I did oppose the the planning application for cameras to be mounted on what is a grade 1 listed structure but it was a waste of time as I knew it would be, I got the usual waffle full of management "speak" and cliches back.
To me this article was scaremongering so what have they got up their sleeves, ?what are we being conditioned for ?, the Tyne Bridge taxis and buses only ? I wonder.
Being a former local govt officer in traffic I smell a rat somewhere.

Yes I think scaremongering and ulterior motives. How heavy are buses, I would have thought more than 3 tons or even 3 tonnes?

I use buses daily over the High Level. I find the speed limit is adhered to by the bus companies drivers and appreciate that the greatly reduced traffic allowed over the bridge will allow this magnificent structure to continue in its designed use, as well as getting me home at a reasonable hour!. The will to spend money and the horrendous consequences of work, to replace the decking fully to modern standards, on traffic across the River would not be countenanced in the current (financial) climate. The two single-carriageway Bridge, as was, is not viable as a modern urban roadway and the bridge loadings should not be taken at face value. It is safe for the traffic using the bridge currently within the constraints set, and frees more space for non-bus traffic on the Tyne Bridge. If cars were allowed back, the problem of static traffic on the High Level would return to previous levels for the same historic reasons that have so far been unresolved - access to South and West routes leaving the single-carriageway Bridge, never mind the nightmare of returning it to a two-way roadway with traffic entering the congested route West from the North end of the bridge! The one-way bus route out of Newcastle has got a natural access to the South, and as it can accommodate peak conditions, shows that as a purely traffic-management solution, it is a natural winner!

If they want to carry on with this farcical notion, how long will it be before they decide that 142's etc are too heavy for the bridge and stop trains from going over! Any bets as to when this wonderful bridge becomes pedestrian only?

Some knee jerk reactions here?

If you want to reduce motor traffic on a bridge, then reducing cars is more effective. Buses can take a lot more people per ton.

And as for pedestrians? The only time the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge was over the design capacity was when it was closed to all motor traffic and was pedestrianised for a day! It was the 50th Anniversary, and they had quite a crowd. It was only afterwards that someone calculated the loads and found it quite a bit over what it was officially designed for.


Richard

Deltic18 wrote:If they want to carry on with this farcical notion, how long will it be before they decide that 142's etc are too heavy for the bridge and stop trains from going over! Any bets as to when this wonderful bridge becomes pedestrian only?

And no more of this!

The validity of the traffic management scheme is not in doubt it is the content of the article regarding a "possible" collapse of the bridge, if there was the slightest possibilty of this happening this bridge would have closed to all traffic.
This is one of the "small" buses Mr Whitehead refers to in the article, I use this bus on a regular basis, the No 58 with a service every 10 mins both ways during the day and 30 mins in the evening and every hour after midnight.
On my travels I have not seen a single lorry or artic cross the bridge as it is well signed as having traffic control cameras and even HGV drivers have the sense not to get "nicked" by these cameras.

Were you threatened with arrest whilst taking this picture?

Deltic18 wrote:If they want to carry on with this farcical notion, how long will it be before they decide that 142's etc are too heavy for the bridge and stop trains from going over! Any bets as to when this wonderful bridge becomes pedestrian only?

There is no problem with rail traffic, at this moment in time. Though I believe there is a loading restriction - I may be wrong. The problem is with the slung road decking.

If you want to reduce motor traffic on a bridge, then reducing cars is more effective. Buses can take a lot more people per ton.

And as for pedestrians? The only time the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge was over the design capacity was when it was closed to all motor traffic and was pedestrianised for a day! It was the 50th Anniversary, and they had quite a crowd. It was only afterwards that someone calculated the loads and found it quite a bit over what it was officially designed for.

With regard to design capacity of bridges. I was on a college tour around the Humber Bridge taken by the Bridgemaster. One of his comments was that he could not repaint the bridge without stripping the old paint first as it would overload the bridge on deadload.