The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-02 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 2, 1852

" With regard to a sit,' near Charing-cross, we are in-
clined to concur in the opinion of Mr. Pennothorne, who
Observes, ••that if, who reference to the Houses of Par-
liament, or for any other relson, the site of the present
bridge must be moved, then it would, as respects
the general traffic, be moot advisable to convert the
present bridge in a light iron foot bridge only, and
build two other bric.7ges at a distance, as it would be
more advantageous to the public generally to incur at
once the greater cost of building two bridges in connexion
with the new streets 7onteraplated for' the improvement
of 'Southwark and Lavibeth, than to expend a,large sum
in forming approaches riot so convenient as the existing
ones, and which possibly afterwards it would be neces-
sary to extend.' •
Tae sites near Richmo'ad terrace and the India
Board hre more favoUrsbly oircurristaneed; and if the
block of houses which now sOarstes Parliament-street
from King-street were removed, either of these situa-
tions inignt be .pre;erable to the one which iv() have
selected. But it is airviutia that much additional time
would' be loit, and a large additional expense incurred.
before either of these could be rendored tit for the con-
stiaCtiou, Of a perwanout bridge With its requisite ap-
.
prcewhes. •
.‘ Property of considerable value must be acquired
both ot.i the Middlesex .ann- Surrey sides of the river be-
fore convenient. access,:s could be made to a new briclg4
at either of these
ppoints. The time required for these
`rensses would delay the opening of the now bridge;
and even wizen eJuipleted, although it might give ail
, . .
bpphruthity ftir architectural display, it seems doubtful
whether the change of site would be regarded as af-
fordingany gaieral convenience commensurate with' its

•*!laving thus ,stated, our objaetions to the above-
inentiOtieu .rtes, we proceed to report our opinion. on
the iodvaniages which would ensue if the third aid last
plan were 'carried into Teat the new brolge
shoUld be etaistructed.adjoining, or as near as possible,
.6 the present.briagei either oil the north or south side.'
"A -new bridge on the south side of the present
structure would ne objectiOnsble on account of its proxi-
mity to the Houses of Partiament. This objection
Woald be increased if the -bridge were constructed
wish a heigot of headwAy of twenty-five feet abort,
Trinity datum. The erection of this bridge would,
moreover, necessitate the immediate purchase of the
entire south pule of Bridge-street, which consists of
27
.houses,.none of which are the property of the Bridg,
Comoussioriere.. The purchase of these houses, inclu-
ding the interests of. the tenants, compensation for good-
will, 'removal, would very far exceed 'the' cost of
anquiring'any property on the north side of Bridge-
street witch might be required for.the approaches to the
new bridge, if it were placed to the north of the exist-
ing bridge.

The— property on the north side of Bridge-street
consists of a block of nine houses, extending westward
as far as Caunon-row, and one house westward of Can-
non-row, all of which are the property of the Bridge
Commission. On the west of the last-named house is a
small block extending to Parliament-street, which is not
the property of the Bridge Commissioners. The leases
of these houses are either expired or have but a short
time to run.
" So much inconvenience and danger are at present
experienced from the confined approaches and very sharp
turn from Bridge-street into Parliament-street, that it
will be necessary to make the accesses to any new
bridge considerably wider than they are at the present
time.
" Some information upon the comparative cost of
constructing a bridge with the requisite approaches
upon the sites above-mentioned will be found in the
Appendix, as well 114 „lu tho evidence of Mr. ilardwick
and of 'Mr. Pennethorne. The question of cost has
not been specially referred .to our consideration, nor
would it be possible to add a satisfactory opinion
on• this matter without a minute inquiry into the
value of property, which may be variously estimated.
We believe, however, that the north aide of the
present structure will be the most convenient and eco- •
uomical size for the new bridge; the most convenient, be-
cause the work could be immediately commenced, and
its erection Will therefore be attended with the least ob-
struction to the traffic; and the most economics], both on
account of the smaller expense which would be required
for the acquisition of property necessary for the enlarge-
ment of the approaches, and because it avoids the neces-
sity of a temporary bridge.
" Having thus stated- the grounds of our opinion as
to the most advantageous site for the new bridge, we
proceed to report to your Lordships our views as to the
best mode of construction, the-width, the height of head-
way
above Trinity datum, the number of arches, and the
material to be used for its formation.

"-And, first, with respect to the width necessary in
,he construction of the new bridge. The opening of
he'neer line of street called Victoria-street, which

- •
rorma a direct and convenient communication between

Cheiva, the Borough, and the City,, the formation of
the South Western Railway terminus in the' vicinity
or the bridge; aryl the increase of the metroptilis on
both sides 'or -the river, render it necessary` to afford
greater faeiutif-d for. the traffic, over the new West-
minster-bridge, the widch. of the present bridge, 42
feet, being found to- be totally insufficient.
"' We'are of opinion, therefore, that 60 feet, including
the footways, should be the minimum width to meet the
requirements of the increasing traffice and the comfort
and safety of the public.
" The width or ihe other metropolitan bridges over
the Thames is stated to be as follows, viz ;--

Feet.
" London-bridge 54
Blaelifriars-ridge ... 42
Waterloo- bridge 43
Vauxhall-bridgo 36
"With respoot to the height of hnail way of the centre
arch of the new bridge, we have considered the conve-
nience of the navigation, the proper inclination of the
road for the purposes of traffic, and the effect which the
structure might have on the architectural appearance of
the New Palace.

" In his evidence, given before the Committee of 1850,
Mr. Barry stated certain conditions which he deemed
indispensable if the bridge were to be retained in its
present situation; these were That the roadway of
the bridge should be level from shore to shore; that the
width of the roadway should not be less' than 100 feet;
that the height of the roadway of the bridge above Tri-
nity standard should not exceed 20 feet.'
complied with, would leave
for
teat
e het i
hspurposesnodwf
et iroen e, if
iron, and of only 12 feet 6 navigation a headway of only 16
f
•inches if the arches were constructed of stone. Such a
bridge as .Mr. Barry recommends would undoubtedly
improve the architectual appearance of the New
raise°, by relieving that building from the effects of
considerationsthe
we should agree
with Mr. Barry that the proposed lowness of the bridge
would be an advantage, and that a width. which would
give it the chardcter of a terrace, or, as Mr, Barry says,
in which
a grand promenade; would be in itself an ornament to
the metropolis, aud a convenience for the communica-
tion across the river.
" A bridge of this limited height and of this ex-
tended width would, however, we believe, be a serious
obstacle to the passage of vessels, while the increase of
the metropolis to the westward renders it important that
every encouragement should be given to the navigation
of the river.
The height of the centre arch of Westminster-bridge
is 25 feet.

It has been stated that the largest valise' navigating
the Thames above London-bridge is of 300 tons, and
also that a vessel •of that tonnage could pass under an
arch of 25 feet 6 inches of Trinity datum, without any
inconvenience, provided that the arch be of sufficient
span.
" We are informed that it would be an advantage to
the coal trade and to consumers, if facilities were, af-
forded for the passage •of larger, vessels, which might
then .possibly supersede the smaller craft now employed
in the coal trade of the river. Regarding, 'therefore,
the interests of the navigation, we. are .of opinion that
the height of a headway should be limited only by the
easy inclination required for the roadway over the
bridge, and we recommend that the height of headway
of the centre arch should not be less than 25 feet
inches above Trinity datuM.
" We subjoin the height of headway of the othir
bridges across the Thames
' feet. inches.

"London-bridge ..••....... 29
131ackfriare.bridge- ...... 27
Waterloo-bridge....... .. ... 27.
Vauxhall-bridge....... ..... 26

6
6:
6
0

" The width of the arch,-for the purposes of navigation, is
as important as the headway. •
" In an arch of a large span the extent of the headway
is not confined to the exact centre of the arch, but extends
over a wider space, and thereby facilitates the passage of the
vessels.
"The fewer the number of arches adopted, the less will be
the resistance to - the "current of the stream, and, conse-
quently, there will be the less pressure against the piers of
the bridge. The fewer the piers the less also will be the ob-
struction to the navigation. The number of piers in the
present bridge contributes to the formation of eddies and,
shoals in the river. ,We would, therefore, recommend that,
in constructing the new bridge it should not consist of more.
than five arches. - •
" In our choice of materials we have been guided by
-the
following considerations:—Economy of time and of money
in the completion Of the bridge, and convenience for the
traffic over the bridge, as well as for the purposes of naviga-
tion. Under different circumstances we might have
ferred a bridge of stone; but considering that such a bridge.r.
would be attended with an increased outlay, and wonlact
quire a third more time to construct, and furthero,ftn its
quire feet
adoption would necessitate an additional ris,eoel
no hesi-
-6 inches for the roadway over the bridge, !3 r
tation in recommending that the bridge we feel
be an
arch bei
An iron ng
iron structure resting on stone piers.
ill be a less pressure
so much lighter than one of stone, there w
A greater span of arch
from the superincumbent weight.
Twenty months is
can be obtained in iron than in atone.
the comletion
said to be the time that would be required .
for
period for the
erection
of the iron bridge, and three years the
of a stone strncture. he expressed, we b
"In accordance with the views
whicher _ su -
were unanimously
mit the following resolutions
agreed to : e should be used as
I.' That the present bridg a tempo.
rary bridge until a new bridge shall have been constructed.
That a new bridge should be constructed adjoining,
or 2.ng,
bridge on
r as possible, to the present the north side,
or Its near
that is, lower down the river.
" 3. That the new lnidge should not be less than 60 feet
in width, including the footways.
"4. That it be coestrueted of iron, with stone piers.
" 5. That it consist of no more than five arches.
6, That the height of headway of the centre arch above
Trinity datum be not less than 25ft. 6in.
"1. That it is desirable that no time should be lost in
making preparation for the commencement of the work.
We beg, -in conclusion, with reference to the 7th reso-
lution submitted by us, to state that the dilapidated state
of the present bridge, the uncertain expense of maintaining
it, even as a temporary structure, and the inconvenience of
this bridge, both to the. land, and river tragic, render it
highly desirable that. the permanent bridge should be
commenced, ae4 - tiaifihed with as 4161147 •ble.