Future of the Transporter

VestasBoro said:
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...
Click to expand...
The figures are all wrong like the prices etc BUT how much money does a non toll bridge take in a day? The Newport Bridge? Victoria Bridge?
 
TeaCider said:
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.
Click to expand...
You should not be fooled by the rhetoric. Was the tower structurally unsound? Does a building need to have an economic use? What if it is a monument? Captain Cook monument has no purpose but no one demands it needs to serve a purpose other than being iconic locally.
 
Expat Smoggie said:
I’m sure China can build a replica for a few quid— job done.
Click to expand...
I’m sure they could not.

China is only skilled at mass production, not one off historic masterpieces like the Tees Transporter Bridge.

I suppose it depends on how much society really values its heritage.

As an iconic structure the Transporter is surely up there with the treasures of the nation or at least the north of England.
 
fmttmadmin said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well it won’t be a Transporter Bridge if it gets dismantled either, or just never “transports” again. Surely preserving it’s physical stature should be the aim, so it exists as a landmark even if not functioning how it once did?

Also, to claim it is one of the most iconic structures in the world is a bold claim. It’s the most iconic structure in Teesside for sure, but do you think it’s up there with Golden Gate and Sydney Harbour? If it was, I doubt it would have these kind of issues surviving commercially.
 
fmttmadmin said:
You should not be fooled by the rhetoric. Was the tower structurally unsound? Does a building need to have an economic use? What if it is a monument? Captain Cook monument has no purpose but no one demands it needs to serve a purpose other than being iconic locally.
Click to expand...

If they were lying about it being structurally unsound, I'll quite happily join in with the outrage about it being demolished.

Captain Cook's monument wasn't deemed a danger.
 
TeaCider said:
If they were lying about it being structurally unsound, I'll quite happily join in with the outrage about it being demolished.

Captain Cook's monument wasn't deemed a danger.
Click to expand...
100% they made it structurally unsound

Oh.. and they lied about having to demolish it to make way for a site that would bring thousands of permeant jobs.

and they lied about it being listed by mistake! saying it was done by an office junior at Historic England!

If you’ve done nowt wrong.. you don’t need to lie.
 
Last edited:
VestasBoro said:
It was given up on a long time ago. It'll be torn down as soon as the H&S get involved, and have to start cordoning the area off and it becomes a risk of collapse which sounds like now. A standard road bridge will be built in its place i imagine, using steel, the design/colour from the bridge to 'honour' the Transporter. Probably try to fashion the arches or whatever the side of a bridge (the design of it) into looking something like the Transporter but it'll never re-open as a car ferry now.
Click to expand...
Sounds familiar. Something similar happened to the Regent in Redcar.
 
I've always thought if the bridge is not going to be 'working' and it's structurally an issue where it is - it would of looked amazing in the centre square area next to the town hall - before all the development of course, a proper landmark saved.... obviously re-locating it would be massive, but it's better than not having it at all
 
TeaCider said:
If they were lying about it being structurally unsound, I'll quite happily join in with the outrage about it being demolished.

Captain Cook's monument wasn't deemed a danger.
Click to expand...
Capt Cook's Monument was destroyed by lightning strike it had to be totally rebuilt at some cost
 
For those
atypical_boro said:
Well it won’t be a Transporter Bridge if it gets dismantled either, or just never “transports” again. Surely preserving it’s physical stature should be the aim, so it exists as a landmark even if not functioning how it once did?

Also, to claim it is one of the most iconic structures in the world is a bold claim. It’s the most iconic structure in Teesside for sure, but do you think it’s up there with Golden Gate and Sydney Harbour? If it was, I doubt it would have these kind of issues surviving commercially.
Click to expand...
The Golden Gate Bridge and Sydney Harbour Bridge are both one of the, if not the main artery road into the cities. For my lifetime atleast, the transporter has been insignificant in terms of it being a major transport route. The other two going would cripple their cities. The transporter is internally iconic, there’s no doubting that.
 
There’s two bits of the argument for me. It would cost much much much more to build a new bridge than even the highest quoted figure - so it really needs to be decided if it is needed as a transport route. Secondly, regardless of whether or not it continues to operate, it’s incredibly important the structure survives in one form or another.
 
Air Resistance said:
For those

The Golden Gate Bridge and Sydney Harbour Bridge are both one of the, if not the main artery road into the cities. For my lifetime atleast, the transporter has been insignificant in terms of it being a major transport route. The other two going would cripple their cities. The transporter is internally iconic, there’s no doubting that.
Click to expand...
It’s iconic to Teessiders, and to a lesser extent further afield in the north.

I think to say it’s globally iconic would suggest it is world renowned. Amongst bridge enthusiasts maybe it is, but I highly doubt if your average Tom, d*ck or Harry on the streets of Los Angeles, Buenos Aires, Tokyo or Manilla has ever heard of Middlesbrough’s Transporter Bridge.

I fully support its preservation, but if hardly anyone actually wants to use it to get across the river Tees anymore it doesn’t seem worth funding that aspect of it.
 
I’m not a fan of the transporter bridge.
it’s not even a bridge.. it’s a fixed crane!
It was built as the cheaper option.
IMG_5549.jpeg
Check out ‘the real bridge’
 
Air Resistance said:
For those

The Golden Gate Bridge and Sydney Harbour Bridge are both one of the, if not the main artery road into the cities. For my lifetime atleast, the transporter has been insignificant in terms of it being a major transport route. The other two going would cripple their cities. The transporter is internally iconic, there’s no doubting that.
Click to expand...
The Newport Transporter is a bridge to nowhere. The works closed and a new bridge was built close by. Infact it is closed 6 months a year and operates the summer months as a museum. They recently built a big new visitor centre. Their ambitions are to make it into the biggest tourism attraction in Wales.
 
fmttmadmin said:
Capt Cook's Monument was destroyed by lightning strike it had to be totally rebuilt at some cost
Click to expand...

If you're on about the same monument I've walked to near Roseberry Topping, it's a fairly small* and shapeless cenotaph, not a massive hollow tower

*comparatively.
 
newyddion said:
I’m not a fan of the transporter bridge.
it’s not even a bridge.. it’s a fixed crane!
It was built as the cheaper option.
View attachment 70952
Check out ‘the real bridge’
Click to expand...
One of the structures was/is recognised as an engineering marvel. The other would have meant knocking down half of Middlesbrough. The artist impression is totally false. Remember that after the Transporter was opened a ship lost the top of its mast after striking the top of the bridge. Think of how long the A19 viaduct is to attain that height. Imagine how long or how steep a roadway would have needed to be to reach the height of the Transporter. The whole point was to ferry workers, largely on foot, across the river. Your bridge would have started at one end near Saltholme and the other near the Cleveland Centre. In 1912 it would not have worked. In the 21st century with cars and lorries yes but then again it would probably have been built far too narrow for modern traffic.
 
fmttmadmin said:
The Newport Transporter is a bridge to nowhere. The works closed and a new bridge was built close by. Infact it is closed 6 months a year and operates the summer months as a museum. They recently built a big new visitor centre. Their ambitions are to make it into the biggest tourism attraction in Wales.
Click to expand...
To be honest, this would be ideal for the Middlesbrough one. It would be interesting to understand what the cost difference would be between being fully operational and a safe structure.

There a lot of messages come out over the years. A few years ago the concern was more about the fact it was sinking, now it seems to be more about the metal condition. There is not a single man made structure or building on Teesside that I’d choose to keep over the transporter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top