The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-15 00:00:00

THE NEW WESTMINSTER BBIDGE.

The Observer of Sunday says :—" We took occasion,
last week, to refer to the rumour afloat that the prin.
ciples upon which the New Westminster-bridge was
being constructed had• been condemned by Messrs.
Rendel and Simpson, the engineers, in their report,
and that there was a possibility of the work having
to be begun de novo. That report is now before us,
and it appears from its Contents that the statements
then male were but too correct. In case the views
taken by these gentlemen are right, not only will the
work already completed have to be taken up, but
there will accrue a total loss on the works of about
42,0001. It will be in the recollection of the public
that the subject of rebuilding Westminster-bridge occu-
pied the attention of a seect committee of the House
of Commons and of the house itself, -and after mature
deliberation, it was determined to erect a bridge on the
old site, of a width of 85 feet, being double that of
the present bridge. The contract for this bridge was
taken by Mr. Mare for 206,4381., to which there would
have to be added 17,7901. for extras, making a total
of 224,2281. This tender was much below any other.
However, the works were commenced, and 85,0001. ex-
pended on them, when Mr. Mare became bankrupt.
The Chief Commissioner of Works afterwards desired
Messrs. Rendel and Simpson to examine the plans and
the works executed, and to report to him on the follow.
ing points :-Ist. The cost of the works up to the
date of their report, or as near to that point as they
could ; 2d. The progress which had been made in the
works ; :3d. The time in which the first half of the
bridge would be ready for traffic ; 4th The time neces-
sary for the completion of the whole structure, and its
probable cost under existing circumstances, also the pro-
bable cost of its approaches ; sth. Their opinion as to
the original scheme, and the nature of that scheme ; and
6th, The desirability of proceeding with the building ;
pied he desired, should their opinion be unfavourable to
the prosecution of the present plan, that they would set
forth most fully the reasons which induced them to arrive
at such a conclusion, and should also advise as to the
course to be adopted, taking into consideration all the cir-
cumstances of the case, and bearing in mind that the object
to be attained was to have a bridge of a permanent cha-
racter. These gentlemen report that 85,0001. have al-
ready been expended, and that, supposing the original
plan of the bridge to be followed out, it could not be
completed for less than 25 per cent, more than the
original contract. This would have been bad enough,
but they go on to state that the principle on which the
piers of the bridge were being oonstructed was faulty,
and that the bridge could not be regarded as a 'perma-
nent' structure even when completed. The original plan
was to dispense with coffer dims or caissons for founding
the piers and abutments. This was proposed to be done
by forming the piers, belowlow water, of a series of wooden
and iron piles, surrounded by a sheathing of cast iron,
the space enclosed by this sheathing being filled in with
concrete. These piles, which are united together by strong
wrought iron ties, are then cut off at a uniform level of 6
inches above low-water mark, and upon them the ma-
sonry is laid. To this plan Meesrs. Rendel and Simpson
offer their decided objection. They are of opinion, more-
over, considering the nature of the bed of the river at the
proposed site, that no piers would last except they were
built of solid masonry, sunk deep in the London clay ;
and that to accomplish this, it will be necessary to resort
to coffer dams. They also think that the s ee of the
cost of a temporary bridge is not a sufficient npensa-
-1
tion for the trouble, delay, risk, and even e cost con-
sequent on the construction of the bridge in two sec-
tions, as was originally proposed, and in such close proxi-
mity with the old bridge. The temporary bridge is esti-
I mated to cost 35,0001. ; and the total amount to be ex-
pended, in addition to what has been already laid out, is
304,0001. ! Such aro their views, supposing that the
bridge is to be constructed at its present width ; but they
propose, in lieu of this, that the width of the bridge
should be reduced to 60 feet, which is still six feet six
inches wider than London-bridge—that, on account of
the rapidly increasing traffic, another bridge be erected
over the river between Lambeth Church and the Horse-
ferry-road—and that approaches should be constructs I
which would open Belgravia and the west end of Lon-
don to the Surrey side of the river, and so materially
draw away a large portion of the present traffic from
Westminster-bridge. By erecting a permanent bridge
the necessity of constructing a tem-
in this locality,
porary bridge during the building of the one at West-
minster would be avoided. By restricting the width of
the bridge to 60 feet, 57,0001 would also be saved ; a
large sum would also be gained in the expenditure for
the approaches, which being deducted from the estima-
ted cost of Lambeth-bridge (415,0001.), would leave
210,000/. as the ultimate cost. The total outlay, how-
ever, requ:red for the two bridges, including approaches
on both sides of the river, making roads, tz,.., would be
898,0001, or perhaps more nearly 1,000,0001. The
bridge at Lambeth would be completed first in four
years, and the one at Westminster in five years
afterwards. Such are the leading features of
the report which is now under the consideration
of a select committee of the House of Com-
mons. If Messrs. Rendel and Simpson's
views as to the principle upon which the piers of the
new bridge are being constructed be correct—and they
have stated before the committee that they could not;
on their reputation as engineers, recomrneed the bridge
to be completed on the criginal plan—the unnecessary
expenditure of this large suns of money will create very
general dissatisfaction. Amongst the engineering world
the report will create intense interest and discussion, as
there exists a strong party who believe in the solidity
of the new princip e, whilst others are diametrically op-
posed to it. The public, however, will not hesitate to
condemn what they will probably term a wasteful ex
penditure of their ineney, and will also deprecate the
inconvenience arising from the delay in completing the
bridge. Nevertheless, it is fortunate that the error, if
error it be, is discovered even now, for it would have
been disastrous in the extremeh if the bridge, when com-
pleted, had to be taken down.

GItEENIVICH FAIL;.—The Kentish. Mercury says that
.the ranger of Greenwich park has just forbidden the
veteran tars to occupy their usual stands upon Obaerva•
tory-hill, with telescopes and spyglasses,