July 23, 2009: Tilt Bridge

No, not Grandma's dentures when she nods off, a real bridge.

Gateshead Millennium Bridge, as a matter of fact.



Now they could have built a drawbridge like everyone else, but nooooooo.

The award winning $44 million Gateshead Millennium Bridge is the first and only tilting bridge in the world. Hydraulic rams at each end of the bridge allow it to tilt so small ships may pass through, and it is this innovative technology which won its designers the prestigious Stirling Prize for architecture in 2002. Thanks to the 19,000 tonnes of concrete poured into 98ft deep foundations and enough steel to build 64 double decker buses, the bridge can withstand a collision with a 4,000 tonne ship moving at 4 knots.

Bet the spoilsports make everyone get off before they tilt it though. :(

Seriously, whats the drawback to a drawbridge...why go overboard?

Hell.... you can't even drive on it. The Brits must have money to burn.

I think $44 million for a retractable bridge is pretty cheap.

And you know, I reckon, when the bridge is up, if you were in a car or better on a motorbike, and you got up *enough* speed, and had an entry ramp ...

Definitely doable.[COLOR="LemonChiffon"] While hugging a polar bear.[/COLOR]

That looks like a row of rising bollards at the far end of the bridge!:eek:

Upon subsequent perusal of the high resolution image, I see I'm completely wrong. In fact it's not even a car bridge. Those rising bollards are two people and a couple concrete barriers. Very cool bridge. Europe is building sweet bridges these days.

That is very cool.

Pico and ME;583332 wrote:

Seriously, whats the drawback to a drawbridge...why go overboard?

Doing the minimum yields simple survival & mediocrity. Going overboard often yields art and inspiration. Project housing comes to mind.

The High Resolution link is incredible! You can see on the skyline several old castles. Now King Henry would have a draw bridge on his river or moat, right?

'I'll never drink that much again...'

/St. Louisians (or whatever they're called)

What a fucking waste of money. $44 million bucks, to walk on? Good God..:headshake

So what? What's the cost of building a SAFE walking drawbridge, let's make it ugly, is it so much less than the cost of this SAFE walking drawbridge, that is aesthetically pleasing? Do you think an ugly one costs about a buck fifty?

If some of you all had your way, everything would be ugly. What's wrong with injecting some beauty into this ugly-hearted world? :headshake

I think he's upset that a government would spend money on anyone who isn't burning fossil fuel to get from point A to point B.

There are 16 people on that bridge, but it's hard to see them because they aren't in cars. If they were in cars, the bridge would be bumper to bumper, and he would be complaining that it isn't wide enough to handle the traffic.

Ugly is beautiful.

Different is.

If it's just for pedestrians they don't need a damn bridge, just a big ass A ladder.

Requirements for ladder:

1) Must be huge
2) Must be buoyant
3) Must love foot traffic
4) This is not a step

Buoyant? No not buoyant... across the water, not in it. :rolleyes:

If it's a stepladder, it damn well better be buoyant. You know how people ignore the fact that it's not a step. Ask any civil (or mean) engineer.

It doesn't go in the damn water, it goes over it. Buoyancy is not an issue.

Eh, be all scientific and shit. It's still a stepladder. Who is calibrating the tensile strength of that thing? Are the calibration devices calibrated, and to what standard?

I think, in the grand scheme, buoyancy is an important safeguard. Think of the children.

heh heh...

I was silly last night!

Why not a ferry? That seems like the best solution to me. But what do I know? I'm just a dumbass Marine who loves ferries. Carry on.

Here's a cheaper way to go.

Ferry? Hell, build a giant catapult!


ETA: Here it is, the human trebuchet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo_oigyFlTA

Trebuchets are so last millenium, tho', dawg!

glatt;583731 wrote:

I think he's upset that a government would spend money on anyone who isn't burning fossil fuel to get from point A to point B.

There are 16 people on that bridge, but it's hard to see them because they aren't in cars. If they were in cars, the bridge would be bumper to bumper, and he would be complaining that it isn't wide enough to handle the traffic.

I actually couldn't give a fig. My taxes didn't pay for it.

And how did you figure my environmental position, from my statement that $44 million dollars for a bridge that benefits so few people, compared to how many people's tax doll-I mean pounds it took to pay for it is a waste (IMHO)? And, for the record, I don't own a car. So there.:brikwall: