Friday, August 26, 2011

We need more power!

How gladdening to read a Guardian comment thread* that seems mostly supportive of something as progressive as Nuclear Fusion (I've yet to read all the comments tho . . 375 at last count).

As many have pointed out, much more money goes into warfaring, cosmetics and even mobile phone ringtones. The Manhattan Project sums are an interesting comparison; irrespective of the dollar cost apparently just 0.4% of US GDP brought the A bomb to fruition. If I recall correctly ( . . hmm?) 0.4% of England's GDP would provide 10 ITERs and fund them for a decade.
This is important as ITER is a research unit - a one-off - with each stage of testing yielding vast amounts of information requiring further investigation as well as complications and frustrations then lengthy shut down periods for rebuild.

At a discussion with the 250 New Towns Club, Robin Stafford Allen, Mechanical Engineer at Culham, yearned for such a scenario akin to Formula 1 racing where different teams developed their ideas based on a common vehicle so as to develop the project as a whole and speed the day when this awesome technology comes on stream. Instead we have scientists grubbing around on eBay for spares!

Unfortunately, too many politicians are short term in their outlook and lack the imagination to see society develop hence the rise of misanthropic snots . . erm . . greens.

When once we believed in space travel and humanity unbound current ideas have us cower beneath rocks and scared of the future.

We need more power; we need Nuclear Fusion or whatever new developments the process brings. After all, there's all those re-runs of Coronation Street (or Crossroads if you're Robin Stafford Allen . . )


(*Damn! - 'Comments closed')

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Take it to the bridge.

There's no two ways about it - Horbury Junction needs a new bridge.
By coincidence, such matters were discussed at a recent WMDC cabinet meeting but disappointing, though not surprised, to see this is largely to do with the precautionary principle - eg, what if a member of public or business puts a claim in? - and wrangling over who is responsible for costs rather than the positivities of 'merely' having stuff that works and increasing mobility.

What was labeled as a temporary measure to alleviate pressure on a weakened bridge has become permanent. Traffic now crosses on one side with the other kerb-stoned off and traffic lights regulate the flow, kind of which begs the question: if the bridge is weak then does it make sense to concentrate traffic to just the one side?

The traffic lights are also problematic as they hinder the free flow of vehicles. Some may see this as a boon as it slows down people happy to get away from work soon as possible, those late getting to work and 'boy-racers' on their way to party at the lagoons. My house is some 30 metres from the road and what calm there is often shattered by trucks clattering past at all hours and must be hellish for those by the roadside.

The bridge and roads are well used due to the industrial estate with many manufacturers of large and heavy steel products, a road haulage company, council building depot and significant others. At one time Charles Roberts wagonworks then Bombardier Prorail had abnormal loads of complete train carriages meandering their way up and down the road.
There's also roughly 170 houses down here - and at one time a proposal for another 140 dwellings on the pallet yard site.

All in all a lot of traffic uses the bridge so there's a substantial case for its renewal. Will it get done though?

In this day and age the 'best' that can be expected is perhaps for strengthening of the existing structure and some cameras to stop us frustrated and impatient motorists jumping the lights. If anything at all - some councils have opted not to repair roads as part of a general campaign to slow down traffic rather than build the dreaded speed bump; maintaining infrastructure isn't quite the norm as our general mobility is under threat, as is our desire for material betterment. And successive legislations seem happier to go for flashier, attention-grabbing 'Regeneration' initiatives.

Maybe having the industrial estate on the doorstep could sway things in favour of a new bridge?

                                                      There's a blue heritage plaque on the wall of Charles Roberts' old office complex that draws attention to his pioneering railway wagon works and the manufacture of Churchill tanks during WW2 - the latter something the good people of Horbury are supposed to know chapter and verse about according to Yorkshire Life magazine - we're also supposed to go around whistling and singing 'Onward Christian soldiers' due to the author, Sabine Baring-Gould, having lived locally (the fact that the Luddites caused the most damage in the country as the factory system began to radically alter their lives happened here rarely gets a mention, neither that Chas. Roberts' factory produced still-standing pre-fab housing after WW2).

That tanks were built here is supposed to confer some sense of duty and sacrifice amongst the public - in a sense that while others have lain down there lives supposedly for us - then as now - then we could at least bear some hardships.
Like not having decent infrastructure.


It really ought not be too difficult to replace this bridge or any other large infrastructure. Although beyond the remit of this article the role the military play is interesting. In this case - bridge building - the armed forces have some pretty impressive equipment and vital experience in providing temporary bridges and could provide a much more progressive and productive role as, eg, an army of engineers, rather than 'a body of armed men' whose purpose is mostly destructive in maintaining the interests of the state and the few. Further to that is the military mindset of focus, overcoming difficulties and getting the job done - when not hampered by officialdom . . . ironically, the very thing they fight to maintain.


Heavy lift airships capable of lifting 1000 tonnes are on the drawing board with the capacity to revolutionise building and transport. Whole pre-manufactured units such as bridges, housing - even power stations in modular form - could be lifted into place without the usual disruptions with on site building and transportation.
Needless to say that the military are considering their deployment and not too hard to guess if and when they do come into service who gets them first.


The best way to predict the future is to invent it.



An exhibition by Leeds metropolitan University architecture and design students called Future Wakefield had an idea for a combined rail and airship station but set in 2090 as it's assumed that the public aren't ready for this kind of future just now. But serviceable airships have already existed for over a hundred years and it will be 200 years by 2090.                                                        

There is very much a case to be made for modern thinking, mobility and getting things done over the staid, traditional and stay put and rather think it would be considered preferable, inspiring, even, to progress than put up with dilapidated services and infrastructure.
And materials and design students as well as many others would find regular and engaging work.

Who will pay for this? In short, the public will, by either making do with a congested and badly-built environment or the long, drawn-out and expensive consultations that accompany getting anything done these days.

In real, practical terms repairing or replacing the bridge, although not entirely straightforward, should be a piece o' piss. If such necessary things as maintaining infrastructure was the norm, ie, we just got on with it.

ASD Westok, originators and manufacturers of cellular beams could provide two, perhaps three, 32 metre* long beams capable altogether of supporting, say, 100 tonnes load on a deck 10 metres wide. The existing bridge is 9m wide including footpaths either side but increasing the width to 10 or even 12 metres allows greater traffic flow and gives trucks better maneuverability.
(* all weights and measures are 'googled' estimates.)

Even though Westok are significant users of the bridge I'm not suggesting it's down to them to replace it although it would be a good leaving present when they relocate later this year and perhaps worthy of a blue plaque. Of course there are other manufacturers of similar products but just as a matter of sheer simplicity as Westok are on the doorstep (they're also previous employers but that's another story).

Not saying they'd want to, and they'd likely not thank me, but the lads/an inspired workforce could make the framework over a few dinner-times from left over stock and bits in the yard . . .

Stripping things bare: the actual cost of the raw material and its manufacture to finished product - say, if you were doing it for yourself - then the time it would take to install. Done to military efficiencies (on a good day . . ) and with skylifters that's likely: survey, make bridge, clear access, make temporary service connections, demolish old and remove, install new bridge, patch in, tidy up.

With skylifting capacity size and tonnage are much less of a consideration and newer methods and materials could be easier brought into use, eg., plate steel sizes, beam lengths, etc. would not be dictated by existing capacities of road or rail bound transport. Whole sections of slab steel could be profiled in one piece thus limiting the intensity of labour and the compromised solution of splitting and rejoining a universal beam.

Likely there's more to it than a fag packet sketch, maybe it's unnecessary as perhaps cheaper, less elaborate solutions do exist but far from seeing things as a gimmick the maintenance and improvement of the built environment - how and where we live - and the running of a progressive economy are paramount and well worth fighting for.

Pie in the sky?

While we're at it we might as well reinstall the train station that I assume gave Horbury Junction its name so that we have increased and speedier transport options - older neighbours happily recall using the service to get to such as Liverpool and Scarborough and that in Chas. Roberts heyday Millfield Rd had 'streams of workmen' using it to and from work.

Even though this may soon find itself obsolete should airships become commonplace and air travel, freight and other services replace conventional rail systems and much of how the road network is used.

Come to think of it, we might not to replace the bridge at all . . .           


(Not to make a specific case for Horbury Junction as there are many bridges in need of replacement from supposedly the world's most advanced economy as well as major projects in under-developed countries.)