Stenson Bridge repair

Published: Saturday, 13 February 2010

BRIDGE 20 on the Trent & Mersey Canal near Stenson was partially demolished following an incident during October 2008. The repair is now underway by BW's nominated contractor May Gurney, writes Ralph Freeman.

The 'Photo Opportunity' I attended was the replacement for the one organised by BW a couple of weeks ago, but postponed due to bad weather.

Salient points

Speaking to the personnel on site, the general opinion was that the damage was caused by the muck-spreading trailer hitting and demolishing the Stenson side parapet of the bridge. The fact that the trailer disengaged from the tractor caused further damage to the arch of the bridge as it fell into the canal.

I was assured the type of brick arch structure used on Bridge 20 is very strong and the weight of the tractor/trailer was not an issue. On my way back however, I noticed the similar bridge below Stenson lock has a seven ton weight limit imposed on it!

£250,000 cost

Something like 6,000  'hand made' (imperial) bricks are to be used in the rebuilding process. This alone accounts for an estimated £10,000 of the £250,000 rebuilding cost. Very smart they look too laid in traditional lime mortar. The weather has delayed the project as lime mortar takes longer to 'go off', and is therefore more susceptible to frost damage. Extensive sheeting and insulation has had to be used to protect the newly laid bricks given the harsh frosts we have encountered of late.

At this point in time it is not known who will be picking up the £250k bill as the legal eagles are still hard at it. It is hoped to have this busy section of the Trent & Mersey open again by the end of March.

Other issues

The non-damaged parapet has been patched in a very non-heritage manner in the past and to my eyes looks a mess.

This side of the bridge was completely sheeted off and hidden from my prying camera! Just coincidence? It looks like normal building bricks (of the wrong colour) were used and the coping stones are just rough concrete not stone (see photo from the bridge side). However, this cannot be rectified I was told as "It's historical".

Personally I thought the old repair was just 'crap'. With the people and material on site would it not have been better to replace this old 'bodged job' as part of the present renovation? It appears an ugly eyesore is now to be preserved for posterity!

From my perspective I find it hard to decide whether it's worth spending this sort of money repairing just one bridge when putting in a new one would most likely be quicker and cheaper. Perhaps the money saved could then have been used to renovate other bridges on the system which had not been so disfigured in the past?

However, it's nice to see bridges being repaired and my thanks to all those on site (BW and May Gurney) for the opportunity to see what is involved at first hand.