Future of the Transporter

[Davey_C]

Google transporter bridges there's a few that have been consigned to History including one in Warrington

If its unsafe it needs to come down and a replacement swing bridge put in its place so the Port of Middlesbrough is maintained. Im sure with modern technology these days it could work. There's a knackered swing bridge that spans the Tyne

It would ease the congestion on the Newport Bridge/Tees Flyover too

 

[birkbeck_dj]

Dorman Long Tower was hugely important structure. It had worldwide recognition and was revered by architects.. absolutely criminal the way that was demolished.

Pure vandalism. Maybe in year to come the people of Teesside will realise what they had and how they let it go without a whimper.

Yes, that was a provocative comment by TeaCider. Obviously TC wasn't a fan but such a dismissive comment wasn't called for.

 

[outoftown]

a lot of money, wasn't it a quid each way? Hell of a lot of cars need to cross that to make a lot of money... It carries what about 12 cars at a time? £12 a crossing... If it was full for every trip it made 0900-1600 then it made about £1200 a day...

Wouldn't keep the pig iron open

 

[atypical_boro]

Needs to be high enough to let ships in

Ah yeah. Fair point.

 

[atypical_boro]

Ah yeah. Fair point.

Could it somehow be converted into a drawbridge like the one in Whitby? But still look like the Transporter?

 

[TeaCider]

Yes, that was a provocative comment by TeaCider. Obviously TC wasn't a fan but such a dismissive comment wasn't called for.

I'd say it was.

There was nothing worth saving from that tower, it had very little history or use and it was an absolute eyesore.

The costs of saving it weren't justifiable, except to the small minority of people that somehow like brutalist architecture.

The Transporter Bridge is the symbol of Teesside and is very popular.

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

a lot of money, wasn't it a quid each way? Hell of a lot of cars need to cross that to make a lot of money... It carries what about 12 cars at a time? £12 a crossing... If it was full for every trip it made 0900-1600 then it made about £1200 a day...

it would only take 51,666 days to recoup that money. 141 years in short. And I am sure in that time no additional maintenance needed. It would be interesting to see exactly how well used it is. It's symbolic but I can imagine it being a money sink.

A 2020 business case seems to suggest;

"As a leisure attraction the bridge would continue to incur expenditure associated with maintaining the structure, staff and running costs. The estimated running costs as a leisure venue are £120,000 p.a. within revised income estimated at £71,000." If it was a quid each way that suggests 190 odd people a day.

Presume some other funding may be given to it though for transport projects etc.

 

[ThePrisoner]

I stand to be corrected but any kind of lift or swing bridge will surely be more expensive to build and unreliable in the long run compared to a fixed bridge.

 

[birkbeck_dj]

The costs of saving it weren't justifiable, except to the small minority of people that somehow like brutalist architecture.

Touché, TC, touché

 

[bumface]

I'd say it was.

There was nothing worth saving from that tower, it had very little history or use and it was an absolute eyesore.

The costs of saving it weren't justifiable, except to the small minority of people that somehow like brutalist architecture.

The Transporter Bridge is the symbol of Teesside and is very popular.

So because you have no taste it needed to be demolished? FFS.

 

[Expat Smoggie]

I’m sure China can build a replica for a few quid— job done.

 

[Tryasize10]

£60m would not buy a new bridge or a tunnel.

TT2 was set to cost something around £260m back in 2007/8. A tunnel was constructed because a bridge at that location was going to cost 3 to 4 times as much.

Would you all be happy if a toll bridge or tunnel ews build, as that is likely to be the answer but would probably require private investment.

 

[birkbeck_dj]

So because you have no taste it needed to be demolished? FFS.

He wasn't a fan, some people didn't like it. That's his prerogative. Architecture, like art, is subjective. He claims a tiny minority likes brutalism. Yes, there're are fanatics and haters. In the top 10 most hated buildings in London, the National Theatre was in the list. It was also in the list for most loved London buildings.
However, there's an argument on whether the tower should have been demolished. The same arguments used against can be used against the Transporter too. Similarly, arguments to keep it could also be used for the Transporter

 

[Tryasize10]

I completely forgot that it was already tolled

 

[SuedeDenimSecretPolice]

Last time I crossed it was just before my father in law died, he had Alzheimer's. We crossed in the car he was like a kid reminiscing, we crossed over and by the time I pulled off the bridge, he had forgotten all about it. Magical few minutes. It cannot be left to rot! or demolished!

A memory to be treasured Sadgit. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[TeaCider]

So because you have no taste it needed to be demolished? FFS.

It needed to be demolished because it was deemed unsafe and it wasn't popular enough to justify the cost of saving it.

If it was structurally sound, it could have stayed there forever, nothing to do with my taste on it.

If the Transporter Bridge wasn't widely popular, it'd already have been taken down, as it's a constant fight to keep it safe.

 

[bumface]

It needed to be demolished because it was deemed unsafe and it wasn't popular enough to justify the cost of saving it.

If it was structurally sound, it could have stayed there forever, nothing to do with my taste on it.

If the Transporter Bridge wasn't widely popular, it'd already have been taken down, as it's a constant fight to keep it safe.

Fair enough. Not going to argue about it. I just happen to one of the 'small minority' that you spoke about so your post got up my nose a bit.

 

[newyddion]

I'd say it was.

There was nothing worth saving from that tower, it had very little history or use and it was an absolute eyesore.

The costs of saving it weren't justifiable, except to the small minority of people that somehow like brutalist architecture.

The Transporter Bridge is the symbol of Teesside and is very popular.

very little history? professional historians would disagree with you. architects across the world were aware of its significance.

costs and funding were in place for it to become an art gallery.. I wonder how many people thought the Baltic Flour Mill was an eyesore?

In terms of architectural and cultural significance the transporter bridge does not come anywhere near to that of the Dorman Long Tower..

It’s form can been seen echoed in the pillars of the Sidney harbour bridge

 

[fmttmadmin]

Could it somehow be converted into a drawbridge like the one in Whitby? But still look like the Transporter?

It wouldnt then be a Transporter Bridge and would no longer be one of the most iconic structures in the world.
It is absolutely world renowned. How many other things in Teesside fit that description?

 

[newyddion]

It needed to be demolished because it was deemed unsafe and it wasn't popular enough to justify the cost of saving it.

If it was structurally sound, it could have stayed there forever, nothing to do with my taste on it.

If the Transporter Bridge wasn't widely popular, it'd already have been taken down, as it's a constant fight to keep it safe.

It was structurally sound.. the only thing that made it unsafe was the partial demolition of the foundations which was carried out when the building was listed.

The building was delisted by Nadine Dorries mere hours into her new job as culture secretary..