Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dizzy

Warrington Transporter Bridge (BBC news)

Recommended Posts

Maybe if the council were as quick to shift Crosfields and Levers off the site they currently occupy and put them on Omega there would be plenty of development land to have all sorts of nice things.... :) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the bridge has Grade II* listed status and Scheduled Ancient Monuments status too so could be eligible for heritage grant funding... where as Mr Smiths is neither so isn't and has to be private/council funded or have monies from the relevant pots that cover and that funds things like that.    

 

I know it is, but the question is why. I am all for preservation and keeping the buildings we have but the bridge???

 

Maybe instead of building a new bridge we can move this one.

 

As for Warrington being a tourist attraction, find that very unlikely

 

How much are you willing to pay extra in council tax to save the bridge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’ll never get to a referendum but if it did, I’d guess that the results would be very different to the views being expressed online.

 

Maybe a whip round from those that would like to see it preserved might help. :mrgreen:

 

There's so many things in this town that could benefit everyone by spending money... But this isn't one of them!

 

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the huge amounts already spent on things that never really benefit anyone Bill.

Just two recent examples offf the top of my head....I didn't want millions spent on a few new paths and a couple of fake bowling green at Banks Park but they still spent it and who really is going to benefit from that ?  I can't see that drawing in visitors from all over the place like they think either can you Bill nor can I see it all lasting more than 20 years. 
I didn't really want millions spending on new pavements and big plant pots for lower bridge street either but I suppose they look nice.  I wonder if they will all be ripped up and replaced in the regeneration plans.

And don't even mention the complete waste of money spent on all 20mph signs that people ignore.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Council have a duty to look after the bridge Bill..... they don't have a duty to fritter money away on the things Dizzy has pointed out. I'd rather council tax money be spent on that than skittles and mausoleums like Bridge Street

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I'm making Baz is other than a very small minority of vocal supporters / council bashers, the vast majority of the general public neither cares about or would want to pay for a rusty old bridge in the back of beyond. So if it did come to any kind of referendum (which was what I was replying to), there'd be no contest.

 

As for their previous spending record, well the less said about that the better but at least with new paths and flower pots, even if I don't agree, at least I can see something for the money!  

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the huge amounts already spent on things that never really benefit anyone Bill.

 

Just two recent examples offf the top of my head....I didn't want millions spent on a few new paths and a couple of fake bowling green at Banks Park but they still spent it and who really is going to benefit from that ?  I can't see that drawing in visitors from all over the place like they think either can you Bill nor can I see it all lasting more than 20 years. 

I didn't really want millions spending on new pavements and big plant pots for lower bridge street either but I suppose they look nice.  I wonder if they will all be ripped up and replaced in the regeneration plans.

 

And don't even mention the complete waste of money spent on all 20mph signs that people ignore.

 

 

I do not want the regeneration of Bridge St to go ahead, I think that is a total waste of money, especially the new council office!

 

the only thing on Bridge street that will change is the Boots store that will become the new market

 

Yet again I do not see why most people on here think it is the duty of the council to preserve the bridge, it is Unilever who should take on the work, maybe the council needs to maintain it until it is handed back to the owners.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It begs the question why did WBC lease the bridge in the first place if it wasn't going to do anything with it? Was it listed in 1964 when it stopped being used? If not then perhaps it would have been better (with hindsight) had Levers demolished it at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who actually owns the bridge? Is it Ineos or Unilever or someone else?

 

If it's privately owned why do the council have a duty to look after it?

 

To be honest it doesn't look much different than a container lift, hardly something that you would want to preserve.

 

Rail_Mounted_Container_Gantry_Crane.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point, these two structures also look alike , one gets 25000 visitors a day though.

 

6a00e550d4cce388340120a8a229e5970b_zpsay

1229290-eiffel_tower_day_zpswlg25mbk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still smarting from those who misread my post (possibly some deliberately) in which I asked a reasonable question about how much you'd want the Council to spend restoring a bridge with no modern function, whether it might be moved somewhere it could be of use (I have no idea where), and then said "Seriously" to point out that if it were a UNESCO World Heritage Site, that might unlock money to save it just for its pure heritage value.

 

Anyway, I said I'd ask questions. Here's some answers.

 

Cheshire County Council took over the bridge, so when Warrington went unitary we had to buy it (for one pound). I haven't unearthed the terms on which Cheshire took it on (and why).

 

Our engineer says it is still structurally sound (even though English Heritage have it "at risk" because of "deteriorating ironwork").

 

The Council will look at having it painted - but I'm not saying I'd vote for that without knowing the cost. Using the new epoxy paint, the Forth Bridge cost £130m to paint... but that is 1.5 miles long and our bridge is one-fortieth as long... it may not be an exact comparison! If I've got the stats right, Forth Bridge is 50,000 tons of steel, Newport transporter bridge is 1,000 tons and ours about a third that size, so even at 1/150 it's a big six-figure sum for a lick of paint... 

 

BBC interviewed Andy Farrall for 15 minutes so don't judge what he said by the ten seconds they showed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well looking at an earlier example I would say the Warrington Transporter and the Fourth Bridge was a fair comparison.

 

In answer to your question the answer is No, I wouldn't want to waste Council Tax money renovating a piece of junk that serves no purpose, and doesn't even look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the only purpose of preserving the bridge is to............preserve it...........then I would say no thanks, just sell it to the highest bidder and let them preserve it. The comparison with the Forth Bridge is misleading as it is still in daily use carrying the railway across the Forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say yes.... paint it and stop wasting money on 20mph signs, speed bumps and cycle lanes instead.... Use criminals on community service to do the work and buy the paint on ebay instead of through the ridiculous and over-priced suppliers that WBC procurement department use.... if that doesn't cover the cost you could always cut back on meals on wheels or free transport to day centres for old folks..... oh sorry that's already been done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's one of 3 in the UK. There are 5 more around the world.

 

It's in my ward, so let me consult you. So how much of your money do you want your council to spend? Newport's cost £3m in 1995 to re-open, and another £2m to repair in 2011. Middlesbrough's has cost £6m in the last 5 years. And both those serve some purpose. Here we're talking about a redundant works bridge with no modern use whatsoever. A tourist attraction like the Angel of the North? Give over.

 

Best bet would be to do the Auf Wiedersehen Pet thing and move it somewhere else where it could be useful.

 

Seriously, unless there's some heritage funding out there, I'm not sure how renovation could be justified. There's a suggestion that the three UK bridges should be made a world heritage site. That might do it.

I, for one, never misread your post, I found it to be a disgraceful reply for a Councillor to make.  You are simply backtracking and trying to play the politician. I know you have a very thin skin and will probably see this as abusive but Warrington Borough Council has a woeful history when it comes to the treatment and care of our heritage, as has been pointed on here many times. In fact it verges on wanton destruction or at the very best gross negligence.   If you would like to explain away how your lot destroyed the old Grammar School please crack on.  You have allowed the sites of every single wireworks to be demolished and covered with housing and units but you never had the sense or vision to keep and make a display of any of the industry that gave the town and its sports clubs its very name.  Now I know that the councillors are keen on the rugby, they must be as there are so many free tickets and meals etc. for the Halliwell Stadium  showing on their register of interests .

 

P.S.  When and where are your surgeries?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there no way the borough council could involve the bridge in regeneration of the river & its banks in that area? We have a natural resource that is no longer viable as a transport alternative but couldn't it be turned into a leisure development involving the river.,possibly a marina to encourage river craft for instance & associated regeneration.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there no way the borough council could involve the bridge in regeneration of the river & its banks in that area? We have a natural resource that is no longer viable as a transport alternative but couldn't it be turned into a leisure development involving the river.,possibly a marina to encourage river craft for instance & associated regeneration.

Sadly Davy that requires vision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still smarting from those who misread my post (possibly some deliberately) in which I asked a reasonable question about how much you'd want the Council to spend restoring a bridge with no modern function, whether it might be moved somewhere it could be of use (I have no idea where), and then said "Seriously" to point out that if it were a UNESCO World Heritage Site, that might unlock money to save it just for its pure heritage value.

 

Anyway, I said I'd ask questions. Here's some answers.

 

Cheshire County Council took over the bridge, so when Warrington went unitary we had to buy it (for one pound). I haven't unearthed the terms on which Cheshire took it on (and why).

 

Our engineer says it is still structurally sound (even though English Heritage have it "at risk" because of "deteriorating ironwork").

 

The Council will look at having it painted - but I'm not saying I'd vote for that without knowing the cost. Using the new epoxy paint, the Forth Bridge cost £130m to paint... but that is 1.5 miles long and our bridge is one-fortieth as long... it may not be an exact comparison! If I've got the stats right, Forth Bridge is 50,000 tons of steel, Newport transporter bridge is 1,000 tons and ours about a third that size, so even at 1/150 it's a big six-figure sum for a lick of paint... 

 

BBC interviewed Andy Farrall for 15 minutes so don't judge what he said by the ten seconds they showed.

 

Some of us judge Andy Farrall on a lot more than an unseen 15 minute interview. As did the people of Chester and the High Court. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. In fact the person you really need to restore the battered reputation of a crisis torn planning department is clearly somebody who has just allowed a huge industrial plant to be built 'without planning consent or environmental accreditation' and involved the council in a High Court case. 

 

Maybe this is what they were talking about in the 14 minutes and 50 seconds of discarded footage. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or perhaps the allowing of an office block to be built on the site of a Roman amphitheatre in Chester?  Either way he  doesn't seem to be the type of person I would like to be in charge of what happens to my heritage.  I wouldn't want him in charge of a game of Minecraft

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...