N25 Bypass - Any Pics?

Bards

Lennoxschips wrote: »

There's only one paragraph in there about the type of bridge:

Two structural forms were considered for the new River Suir Bridge: a Girder Bridge and a Cable-stayed Bridge. For most of the environmental issues considered in this EIS, the precise nature of the bridge design does not have a significant effect on the potential impacts of the scheme. However, the cable-stayed bridge would have significantly less impact on water quality and fisheries, as there is no requirement for construction of piers in the main river channel. The cable-stayed bridge would also have positive landscape impacts as it would become a feature of the landscape, offsetting the scenic quality against the engineering structure, while the girder bridge designs would have negative or neutral impacts. The girder bridge would have a lower navigation clearance (c. 12 m) compared to the cable-stayed bridge (c. 14 m). The presence of piers in the river channel with the girder bridge may result in the generation of currents and eddies, and these could interfere with navigation. Therefore, for the three environmental issues where the precise nature of the bridge design could have a significant effect of the potential impacts of the scheme, it is clear that the cable-stayed bridge would have less impact compared to the girder bridge designs considered.

"may" result in the generation of eddies, which "could" interfere with navigation... yeah, where's the study into this?

and why do they need 14 m clearance instead of 12 m clearance? what gives?

and where's the cost estimate of the two types of bridges? did they not bother to do this?

Sounds to me like they had their minds made up already. Typical Irish planning.

it was also a condition of planning

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/ER2003.htm

JohnC.

Personally, I think the structure is looking better and better as more cables are installed.

Trotter

I had the pleasure of attending a presentation recently about the construction of the bridge. The white cables you see are not actually cables at all. Its a white tubular cover, with the smallest one being the circumference of a large paint tin.. about 20cm.

Inside this white tube is the cables that are actually taking the strain. They're wrapped strands of metal for extra strength.

The bridge is built to last for at least 120 years!

Bards

Trotter wrote: »

I had the pleasure of attending a presentation recently about the construction of the bridge. The white cables you see are not actually cables at all. Its a white tubular cover, with the smallest one being the circumference of a large paint tin.. about 20cm.

Inside this white tube is the cables that are actually taking the strain. They're wrapped strands of metal for extra strength.

The bridge is built to last for at least 120 years!

Discovery channel often show documentaries about cable stay bridge construction and is very interesting indeed

whitey21

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Sounds to me like they had their minds made up already. Typical Irish planning.

Well, if they release any statement about the bridge, they are not going to say both are perfect and brillant but we like the sound of this one. They are gonna give the reasons why 'they believe' one bridge design is better than the other!

i also believe, that the more movement allowed in cable bridges dampens down the effect of eddies etc than a stiffer girder bridge! I did a brief study on vortices a while back!!!!

Lennoxschips

The planning document said it should be a cable stayed bridge as it is a "visual amenity" that way. That's very bad reason. I wonder if they even bothered to carry out a cost comparison.

Which contractor is building the bridge?

Lennoxschips

I've found it, the contractor is Ascon, a division of Dutch company BAM.

BAM got into big trouble here in Holland for engaging in building fraud. They were fined close to 30 million euros by the Dutch government when they were caught. I think it was one of the biggest fines ever doled out in the history of the Dutch state.

KingLoser

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Nope, I'm referring to the pillars in Image 0312. Those aren't stairs.

I think they're supporting sections of the bridge that wont need to be supported once the rest of the cables are attached.

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I've found it, the contractor is Ascon, a division of Dutch company BAM.

BAM got into big trouble here in Holland for engaging in building fraud. They were fined close to 30 million euros by the Dutch government when they were caught. I think it was one of the biggest fines ever doled out in the history of the Dutch state.

Google hates your idea that Royal BAM Group have ever been involved in building fraud... got a citation?

AdMMM

You're not good with Google

trishw78

I'm nearly sure it's the Spainish(Dragados) that are building the bridge

Bards

trishw78 wrote: »

I'm nearly sure it's the Spainish(Dragados) that are building the bridge

AFAIK both Contractors are, certaintly when they were building the Pylon, Dragados had one leg and Bam the other

KingLoser

AdMMM wrote: »

You're not good with Google

One 404 is all there is!?

JohnC.

That's no moon 404

KingLoser

Right to! Musta just been in work..

Lennoxschips

KingLoser wrote: »

I think they're supporting sections of the bridge that wont need to be supported once the rest of the cables are attached.

That's the point I'm making. Why aren't these permanent pillars? There's obviously room for them, it would work out much cheaper due to less span needed. Why are they constructing such a huge span?

Google hates your idea that Royal BAM Group have ever been involved in building fraud... got a citation?

I just assumed you knew Dutch

Bouwfraude BAM site:.nl will get you a lot of hits.

KingLoser

Lennoxschips wrote: »

That's the point I'm making. Why aren't these permanent pillars? There's obviously room for them, it would work out much cheaper due to less span needed. Why are they constructing such a huge span?



I just assumed you knew Dutch

Bouwfraude BAM site:.nl will get you a lot of hits.

I wish I knew Dutch! Would not still be stuck here watching a bridge.

I know what you're saying, and I'm just speculating, but I think the temporary pillars actually wont be necessary after the rest of the cables are installed.

This is the part I could be wrong about: I believe the cables run from the Waterford side, up the tower and then continue down to the KK side, rather than terminating in the tower itself.

So, right now, with only some of the cables in, extra support is needed for the road on the WD side, but will not be needed once the remaining lifts and cables have been installed as it'll be supported that way.

It's hard to explain, but I think I made sense.

I'm not sure about the cost, but this project started in a time when price wasn't on the government's mind, and it certainly wouldn't be cheaper to go back and start again!

Road-Hog

KingLoser wrote: »

I wish I knew Dutch! Would not still be stuck here watching a bridge.

I know what you're saying, and I'm just speculating, but I think the temporary pillars actually wont be necessary after the rest of the cables are installed.

Correct

This is the part I could be wrong about: I believe the cables run from the Waterford side, up the tower and then continue down to the KK side, rather than terminating in the tower itself.

Incorrect - the cables run from the Waterford side up to the pylon, terminate there and then a seperate one runs from the pylon down to the KK side

So, right now, with only some of the cables in, extra support is needed for the road on the WD side, but will not be needed once the remaining lifts and cables have been installed as it'll be supported that way.

Incorrect - the 'auxillary pillars' were constructed to allow the 'back span' to be built (i.e. WD side of pylon without cable support) in advance of the 'river span'. Building the 'backspan' without cables facilitates easy access for materials, personnel, plant etc to build the 'river span'

It's hard to explain, but I think I made sense.

I'm not sure about the cost, but this project started in a time when price wasn't on the government's mind, and it certainly wouldn't be cheaper to go back and start again!

Finally - the main reason for chosing a cable stayed bridge was to do with the non-requirement for deck support within the river/shipping channel (which also results in a reduced environmental impact) also in the construction phase, no barges, coffer dams etc ( high cost and health and safety risks reduced) are needed, the river span deck is constructed almost from 'dry land'

Trotter

The cost of the bridge and bypass together is in the region of 250 million I believe.

On the structural support side, I was told that the cabling is designed so that the final setup will divert most of the load straight down into the standing foundations which go over 40 metres below the surface of the riverbank!

They must have had some job finding stable ground or rock.. Its no wonder they had to go so deep.

Squiggle

Can anyone settle a bet for me in relation to this bypass. When the bypass started the big sign on the New Ross road out by the Old Creamery garage originally gave the finish date as some time in 2009. This was subsequently changed on the sign to a finish date some time in 2010. Someone I was talking to at the weekend said there was never any changes made to the sign :eek: ! Who's right ?

Bards

latest newsletter can be found below

http://www.crg.ie/WaterfordNewsletterMar09.pdf

mike65

You know what would look stunning?

All the cable lit with fibre optic.

Bards

mike65 wrote: »

You know what would look stunning?

All the cable lit with fibre optic.

Becasue the steel cable stays are incased in a white glossy shell. they will glow when they switch the lights on - and will have the same effect without the expense

Edit: see example below
http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ginbZp0DQ7gu/340x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daylife.com/photo/0ginbZp0DQ7gu&usg=__6Malc6giyIV6RuJ2ZqpaoCSO6_o=&h=510&w=340&sz=36&hl=en&start=29&um=1&tbnid=FRJPWJ3PqEdu0M:&tbnh=131&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcable%2Bstay%2Bbridges%2Bat%2Bnight%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1

Jambo

The Mersey based crane barge " Mersey Mammoth" has arrived in the suir for some lifts on the new bridge

wellbutty

The Mersey based crane barge " Mersey Mammoth" has arrived in the suir for some lifts on the new bridge

Is it still there????????? Anyone any photos of it in action on the bridge?

Stan Nangle

wellbutty wrote: »

Is it still there????????? Anyone any photos of it in action on the bridge?

I got a couple off the slipway at Grannagh yesterday, not great, but you can see what they're at.

wellbutty

Thanks for the pics Stan, its taking shape very quickly now

trishw78

Also form the Grannagh Slip from the other night

ex_infantry man

trishw78 wrote: »

Also form the Grannagh Slip from the other night

this is a very nice shot i must say very professional looking

Sully

Nowhere near as good but myself and another lad went from B&Q entrance all the way out to the bridge where we got stopped by security! Took lots of photos but see below for some of the more interesting ones! Ill upload more onto Pix and link it in a bit.

Sully

Part II