A prototype example for those of you who want a bit of variety in the building/repair materials.
© David Meaden

Is it me David or is that a shed in that arch or some other structure?.

It's a shed Alan. A number of the arches are used for parking or storage. I think by local residents rather than the SVR. The rustic nature of the shed adds a bit more character to the viaduct.
Regards
David

I think it's great,that's why i asked.Thanks as always for the time and trouble in taking these photos.

SLATERS 7MM HEAVY DRESSED STONE - PERFECT FOR THE JOB!!!

Another winner David, thanks.

Allan.

Such as….

The brickwork repair on this photo looks a little odd but it shows how much thought went into a simple job like this.  They could have just slapped in a plain brick facing but chose to add the stepped courses at the top and the chamfered course at the bottom.  The former to stop water soaking into the wall and the latter to deflect the drips created by the stepped courses above.  The vertical "step" is presumably to reduce the wind effect on the surrounding stonework which is softer than the brick and would therefore erode quicker as the wind "skidded" off the smooth bricks. 

Makes you wonder what on earth was holding the viaduct up while they did the repairs and what necessitated such major work.
A major traffic accident and a wayward lorry possibly..

Or the glue come unstuck...

[user=1430]Trev[/user] wrote:

Makes you wonder what on earth was holding the viaduct up while they did the repairs and what necessitated such major work.
A major traffic accident and a wayward lorry possibly..

Those repairs are only superficial Trev - the structure is massive under the shell and would have remained quite safe. :thumbs

My guess is that, judging from the surrounding stonework,  it was to replace badly eroded surface stone.  If it hadn't been done, rain would have gradually seeped in and frosts would have "blown" the surface - rather like road surfaces with cracks in them……rain gets in and a couple of hard frosts, and the surface literally blows off.

Brick - at least the "hard" engineering type brick they used there, is far more waterproof than stone.

Some of these structures are hollow inside although i think these would probably be the larger ones.Memory fails me but i think the Clifton suspension bridge is one such example.Please correct me if i've got the wrong one.

The decking and many of the vertical supports on road bridges, particularly on motorways, was usually  filled with very large rolls of expanded polystyrene Alan.  The purpose was to reduce the weight of the whole structure.

They'd build the main load bearing structure - a sort skeleton of steel or pre-stressed concrete beams - which left huge voids to fill before they could lay the "outer skin" or road.  Filling these with reinforced concrete would not only have been pointless because, apart from the costs involved,  they take no load but also would be far too heavy for the supporting "skeleton".  Most of the empty space was taken up by these huge polystyrene rolls with a fairly thin "skim" of concrete covering them.

You're right in that Brunel's Clifton suspension bridge supporting towers and abutments are honeycomb structures for the same reason - no difference in structural strength and a huge saving on costs.  The decking I believe, is not hollow other than for the small "tunnels" built into it for internal inspection of the metal.

Thanks for that Peter.I remember seeing a program where the presenter and the "expert" went inside looking up into the void.I think this may have been Clifton.

Fascinating stuff lads.... one of the reasons I love this forum... keep it coming.