Shurely shome mishtake here.My reading of the illustrations in the front page story is of a temporary stiff double decker "insert" that is built across the river within the bridge, growing across the river from both sides to meet in the middle, anchored to the ground on both banks, and resting probably via some form of trusses upon the river bed piers of the old bridge. It is suggested this would require about a year to complete.As shown it would carry motor traffic on top and peds + bikers beneath. This would enable the old bridge to be dismantled, taken off site for repair and replacements, then reassembled. At which time the temporary insert is dismantled and removed, leaving a sound old bridge in place to carry its usual traffic.If this is a good interpretation then the bridge would remain closed for a year while the insert is constructed and then opened for normal traffic. After a probable period of several years during which normal traffic used the "insert" while the old bridge was rebuilt around it, there would be a further interruption to traffic while the insert was dismantled and removed and final work completed on the restored bridge.It's an ingenious idea which renews the old listed bridge and restores its full function, if that is what is wanted. It quite likely offers the shortest total time without a functioning river crossing for all the usual traffic. The old bridge does look to contain some some novel (unique?) engineering design. Against that I suspect the total cost may be higher than building a new bridge alongside, which is likely to involve the purchase and demolition of adjacent properties, and demolishing the old one. On the other hand the front page article does create some confusion and I recognise that my interpretation does contain speculation and may not be what the designers intend - though I did enjoy working it out.
Jeff Gear ● 2159d