On Wed, 27 Mar 24 11:15:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <uu0so5$2pi2n$2@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 26/03/2024 18:45, charles wrote:
>> > In article <utuubn$1u41s$2@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
>> > <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On 26/03/2024 16:38, Pancho wrote:
>> >>> On 26/03/2024 16:18, Andy Burns wrote:
>> >>>> Tim+ wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> There's already talk of replacing the bridge (which was
>> >>>>> undoubtably an elegant structure), but surely at the mouth of a
>> >>>>> very busy shipping port a tunnel would make much more sense?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Or build some sort of island surrounding the supports?
>> >>>
>> >>> Which raises the question, are British bridges vulnerable to
>> >>> similar events?
>> >>>
>> >>> Are any UK container ports upstream of bridges? Are the boats that
>> >>> do go under major bridges big enough to destroy them?
>> >
>> >> We only have a few big estuaries. The Severn is probably the biggest
>> >> with the M4 going over it.
>> >
>> > How about the Forth, the Humber, the Clyde and, even the Thames and
>> > there's also Milford Haven at the mouth of the Cleddau
>> >
>> >
>> Yes, those are the few big estuaries we have. How many have bridges
>> with piers? You might include the drowned rivers on the south coast
>> like Falmouth and dartmouth, but there are no bridges that I can
>> recall.
>
> Last night's tv programme on the RNLI in the Bristol Channel showed that
> the "Second Severn Crossing" [or whatever it's now called] had support
> towers in the water, Topically the concern was about a barge with no
> power hitting one of them

However I think the concern was more for the barge(& occupants) than the
bridge

Avpx

--
The only way housework could be done in this place was with a shovel or,
for preference, a match. (Witches Abroad)
Wed 11166 Sep 11:40:01 GMT 1993
11:40:01 up 4 days, 18:29, 8 users, load average: 0.17, 0.27, 0.28