A Queer Ferry



I would call this an aerial tramway for cars. Seems it would have been much easier just to build a bridge!
     Posted By: Paul - Wed Nov 27, 2019
     Category: Engineering and Construction | Motor Vehicles | Technology | 1930s





Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widnes-Runcorn_Transporter_Bridge

It seems to have had lasted for a good while. I was wondering why not just build a bridge in the first place?
It seems cost and letting large ships pass were the factors
Posted by S. Norman on 11/27/19 at 08:09 AM
This is one of those engineering projects where the "most practical" option wasn't doable, and they had to resort to the "least impractical" solution.
Posted by Phideaux on 11/27/19 at 11:12 AM
Thanks to Phideaux and S. Norman x 2 for enlightening info on "trasnporter bridges." WEIRD UNIVERSE has the smartest and most forthcoming patrons!
Posted by Paul on 11/27/19 at 11:38 AM
A bridge would cost way more, due to the inclines needed on either side to get to the elevation. And they may have needed miles for these, as the bridge was designed for waggons having only two real horse-power. Clever contraption, I'd say, but forget it for high volume traffic crossings.
Posted by Virtual in Carnate on 11/27/19 at 02:41 PM
I'm no engineer, but it seems to me the deck of a bridge weighs a whole lot. By eliminating the deck, they can build a much less robust structure at a much lower price. The weight of conventional bridge decks is why some bridges (especially draw bridges) have steel decks.
Posted by ges on 11/27/19 at 05:05 PM
Darn, I visited cousins in Middlesbrough many years ago and nobody told me about the transporter bridge.
Posted by ges on 11/27/19 at 05:09 PM
Another advantage to this system is that it apparently supported pedestrians, which a bridge built for cars or trains wouldn’t do very well.
Posted by Brian on 12/03/19 at 09:56 PM









Rules for posting: 1) No spam. 2) Don't be a jerk.