After what seems like two weeks of continuous rain it had finally stopped – the sun was even threatening to show it’s face, well there was certainly the odd speck of blue sky within sight. So with only a few weeks left of light evenings (yes, depressing I know, but summer hasn’t got that long left to stay now before autumn moves in) I thought I should get off my fat arse, get out of my hotel room, and go and see something…
One evening earlier during my working stay in Livingston – on a visit to the Ratho climbing centre – I’d spotted the famous Forth rail bridge on the horizon. That’ll be worth a visit I thought, and it’s only 10 miles away with the added bonus of including a trip to the seaside! π
I’m certain the first picture on the Wikipedia page (linked above) is seriously photoshopped (maybe Ian helped?), whereas the picture I took, above, hasn’t been heavily adjusted.
Luckily the tide was out and I got to explore the bridge a close quarters from the Firth of Forth beach. Guess what! There’s a line of bolts up one side of one of the bridge’s piers. Anyone fancy climbing it? The first 20 metres are going to be quite bold (no bolts), most of them looked quite rusty (sea air), they were not climbing bolts (but would be okay if tied off – I think), the pier walls are curved (so the top 20 metres is plumb vertical-ish), and all the holds will be open-handed (the granite blocks are rough hewn, but they’ll provide some great foot holds). Still fancy it? 60 metres of poorly bolt protected and hard climbing, and if you succeed nothing to look forward to except a night in a Scottish gaol cell.
It’s a marvellous piece of Victorian over-engineering! Why does stuff that is so clearly a massive waste of money and resource (lets face it, it’s a clear example of not knowing enough to design a better bridge) get celebrated so widely. Well, I suppose it is an extremely aesthetic structure! π Although, so is the new (road) bridge – aesthetic that is – and it is far more elegantly designed and built…
I’m a bit surprised at the ‘over engineered’ comment – it is, after all, a railway bridge carrying very heavy loads and subject to extremes of temperature & weather (apart from spanning an estuary). At the time, with the techniques available then, I’m sure it was considered pretty innovative (as well as aesthetically pleasing).
Yes, to a point I do agree it is – in it’s way – a very aesthetic and enduring structure of it’s time, perhaps more of a sculpture than a bridge?! π
Colin had some similar points to raise about the engineering, but was too scared to put them here. Maybe (hopefully) he’ll now share his point-of-view now that the ice has been broken…
Actually, I have a small apology to make; I happened to mention this to a friend who knows about most things railway wise, and he confimed that it is generally acknowledged that the bridge is over-enginered; this was principally due to the Tay Bridge disaster and the desire to avoid any chance of a repetition.
Yes, and Colin wrote something about not having a reliable source of predictable quality steel too. What was that all about Colin?