THE BULLS BRIDGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3765, 10 March 1928, Page 3

THE BULLS BRIDGE.

MODIFIED SCHEME RECOM-

MENDED.

On Tuesday afternoon members of the Manawatu add Rangitikei County Councils met in conference at Bulls, to consider the report of Mr. S. A. IR. Mair, the Rangitikei County Council engineer, and of Mr. T. M. Ball, of Stratford, engineer of No. 8 Highways District, on the state of the Rangitikei River Bridge at Bulls. The following is Mr. Mair’s report : “As directed, I have consulted with the District engineer of the Public' Works Department, at Stratford, and the engineer to the Main Highways Board at Wellington, re the proposed maintenance work and the suggested widening of the Bulls bridge. “A hurried inspection of the bridge was made on Monday in company with the District Engineer from Head Office and the Public Works Bridge Inspector. The latter officer is now making a thorough inspection of the bridge, and a comprehensive report wilil later be furnished to the Engineer-In-Chief by the Departmental engineers. “The inspection ■ already t made has evidenced the fact that the bridge is very much out of repair, both by reason of decay of timber and the buckling of chords, etc., and the full extent of these will be dealt with by the department’s inspector when the overhaul is complete.

“Mr. Tyndall, engineer to the Main Highways Board, has expressed the opinion that he did not realise that the bridge, 1,570 feet in length, did not provide passing places, and that the time has arrived, by reason of increased motor traffic, when this aspect should be thoroughly considered before any comprehensive repairs are put in hand.

“As the result of investigations so far, I am of the opinion, and I think Mr. Ball will agree, that the proposed repairs, as approved by the Main Highway Board, should not be put in hand, but should be modified to what is considered urgently necessary to -make the bridge safe until the proposal of widening and reconstructing can be considered, and if necessary carried out.

“To do this it would be necessary to incur an expenditure of approximately £3,000 as follows: Removal of present deck and surface £100; new-deck (90,000 ft. at 50s) £2,250; spikes, insurance etc., £100; probable repairs to defective timbers, etc., £550; total, £3,000. “I have therefore to suggest a recommendation be forwarded to the Main Highways Board, that the approved repairs, of £6,200, be not proceeded with, and the modified expenditure of £3,000 be undertaken immediately, and that upon completion of the Inspecting Engineer’s report a further conference be held to consider the bridge from every aspect. “Inspection has shown that the original design of the bridge was not adhered to when constructed, nor was the specified quality of timber used throughout.” Mr. T. M. Ball-reported similarly as to the result of casual inspection, and expressed the opinion that the Highways Board might consider building a new structure altogether. The whole question depended largely upon the report received from the expert at present making an inspection of the bridge. A new bridge would cost about £45,000. The reports were fully discussed, and it was decided to send a deputation to interview the chairman of the Highways Board after the latter had received the report from the expert. Members of both Councils will then confer, and consider the outcome of the interview with the Board.