The innovative design helped secure the backing of the City Corporation as well as of the Millennium Commission and the Cross River Partnership. Altogether, 18 million pounds was raised for the design and construction of the Millennium Bridge. No Act of Parliament was required because the Port of London Authority granted a licence for a river crossing and the local authorities concerned gave planning permission for the riverside developments. Contracts were awarded to Monberg & Thorsen and Sir Robert McAlpine, firms which had already collaborated on restoration work on the Forth Road Bridge, compared with which the Millennium Bridge must have seemed like a minnow. Work started in April 1999, when the project was launched by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, and proceeded with no more than the usual problems until it was almost ready for the Queen’s official opening on 9 May 2000.
The Millennium Bridge under construction
After attending a special service at St Paul’s Cathedral, where she shook hands with the arch-republican Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, the Queen walked onto the bridge but could only go halfway across because work was not fully completed. She also awarded Anthony Caro the Order of Merit, presumably in recognition of his past achievements, as it seems his only visible contribution to the final design of the Millennium Bridge is some fine but unrelated sculptures at its north end.
Despite the problems with the opening ceremony, the press and public greeted the new bridge with acclaim. According to Arup, it has the longest central span of any footbridge in the world, and everyone was eager to enthuse about a British millennium success after the despondency arising from the experience of the controversial, beleaguered Millennium Dome project. Crowds flocked in excited anticipation to the official public opening on 10 June 2000. There was a charity walk in the morning, at which a slight wobble was noticed. However, the experience of crossing the new bridge proved even more exciting than had been expected as the structure started to wobble more and more violently when it was thrown open to one and all at lunchtime. There was no panic. Indeed, many of those who were at the opening clearly enjoyed themselves and were rather disappointed when the wobble was eventually cured.
Although the engineers were sure that there was no danger of the bridge collapsing, they decided to close it while they investigated and considered what to do. The great British success story had turned into a nightmare, and the media had a field day. Matters were only made worse when the designers claimed that the wobble was caused by people walking in step, which seemed to put the blame on the public. People pointed out that Norman Foster’s office was near Albert Bridge, at the approach to which there is a clear sign demanding that troops should break step when crossing. Carlton TV broadcast a documentary claiming that the designers had failed to learn the lessons of other problem bridges. Only six months before the Millennium Bridge was opened, the Pont Solférino in Paris had developed a sideways sway and was closed for repairs. An article in the New Scientist of 31 March 2001 cited a paper by Yozo Fujino from the University of Tokyo which described a similar effect on the Toda Park footbridge, which swayed alarmingly in 1994 when crowds swarmed onto it to watch the boat races on the river underneath.
Arup’s official explanation for the wobble was that it resulted from an initial slight sideways movement caused by a chance correlation of people’s steps when a considerable number of pedestrians walk along a long narrow bridge. Once this happens, it becomes more comfortable for people to walk in step and this further exaggerates the wobble. The effect is known as ‘synchronous lateral excitation’, and Arup even developed an equation (F = K × V) to allow them to calculate the critical mass of pedestrians needed to cause this to happen. Unfortunately, it seems that similar previous bridge problems had not been widely publicised and therefore no standard tests had been developed to evaluate the stability of a footbridge when people walk in step. Arup had performed all recommended theoretical tests, and experts confirmed that according to these the bridge should have performed perfectly well. The New Scientist, however, was not impressed and strongly criticised the reluctance of engineers to publicise their failures or research the literature. This compares with the situation in the aviation industry where every manufacturer is informed about crashes as a matter of routine.
After much internal discussion, Arup developed a solution involving the installation under the superstructure of shock absorbers: 37 viscous dampers and 50 tuned mass dampers. The cost of the repairs amounted to five million pounds. Who came up with the money remains a secret, but it was made clear that no public finance was involved. Because of long arguments about who should pay, the need for thorough testing of the solution, and delays in the supply of the dampers, it was 18 months before the Millennium Bridge was reopened. While work progressed, passers-by may have noticed small bundles of straw hanging from under the footway. This traditional method of warning shipping that work was going on overhead arises from the time when barges bringing straw from the west for London’s horses passed under a bridge being repaired and would often leave a wisp of straw hanging from the scaffolding. The old-fashioned warning sign is still used and is part of every waterman’s exam, but it did seem incongruous on such a modern structure.
The bridge was finally reopened on 22 February 2002, just before the Golden Jubilee Bridge at Charing Cross. Despite being two years late, it retained the name Millennium Bridge. As reported in the Daily Telegraph of 23 February 2002, the reopening was performed with some hilarity. Emma Drakes from Highbury, aged 91, was given the honour of crossing first, as she had been disappointed to just miss the opportunity of crossing it in 2000. The Sun sent a page-three girl in a micro-bikini and carrying a plate of jelly to test out what would wobble. To most people’s disappointment, there was no discernable movement, and eventually the bridge will doubtless lose its nickname of ‘the Wobbly Bridge’. Sir Norman Foster, however, was delighted, as he had promised to throw himself off the bridge if it ever wobbled again.
Today, the Millennium Bridge is a popular crossing and fulfils the original concept of linking the north and south banks of the Thames at the point of two of London’s most iconic buildings – St Paul’s Cathedral and Tate Modern. It could hardly create less obstruction to the views of either of these buildings. For those who wish to be reminded of the wobble, it is just possible to discern dampers lurking in pairs beneath the footbridge deck. Sadly, Tony Fitzpatrick, the engineer responsible for the damper solution to the problem of the wobble, died in a cycling accident in July 2003. Thanks to his elegant design, the dampers in no way impinge on the slim, elegant lines of London’s newest river bridge.
CHAPTER 13
Southwark and Cannon Street
This chapter covers Southwark Bridge and the adjacent Cannon Street Railway Bridge. Southwark Bridge was completed in 1921, replacing the original Southwark Bridge of 1819, designed by John Rennie. Cannon Street Railway Bridge was opened in 1866 to carry the trains of the South Eastern Railway to Cannon Street Station. The bridge was widened in 1893.
Southwark Bridge
The history of Southwark goes back nearly two millennia; a settlement grew up around the southern approaches to the wooden bridge which the Romans built to cross the Thames near the site of today’s London Bridge. By Tudor times, Southwark had developed into the entertainment district for the inhabitants of the City, with a reputation for drunkenness and debauchery. The area abounded in brothels, inns, bear-baiting establishments, theatres and prisons, which the City liked to keep at arm’s length even though this meant crossing the river to enjoy its pleasures. Until the construction of Blackfriars Bridge in 1769, the only permanent crossing in the area was provided by Old London Bridge, which had become hopelessly congested. The other method of crossing the river was to hire a wherry, with the dual risks of capsizing in the fast-flowing tidal river and being forced to pay over the odds by unscrupulous watermen. By the eighteenth century, Southwark was no longer the theatre district of Shakespeare’s time but had become a working-class area the inhabi
tants of which needed to cross the river to their places of employment on the north side. Since the distance between London Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge is about one mile, there seemed to be a case for constructing a new bridge in between them to cater for the growing cross-river traffic requirements.
In 1811, the Southwark Bridge Act was passed, incorporating the Southwark Bridge Company and authorising it to raise £300,000 to construct a bridge from Queen Street on the north bank of the river to a site on the south bank where no through roads existed. The prospectus emphasised the benefits of such a bridge to the City, to the Borough of Southwark and to the subscribers. It described how the new bridge would relieve the congestion on London Bridge and thus facilitate commerce on both sides of the river. It would result in the construction of a handsome street from Bankside to St George’s Church and therefore ‘be the means of adding to the Borough a neighbourhood of inhabitants of respectability in the room of those whose removal it will occasion of an inferior class and thus increase the trade and comfort of Southwark’. The final part of the prospectus attempted to estimate the likely return to investors, based on what was claimed to be a conservative assumption that only one-sixth of the traffic over London and Blackfriars bridges would be diverted to the new, more convenient crossing. The calculations showed that subscribers could expect their shares to yield an income of 10 per cent from the tolls.
The Southwark Bridge Company engaged John Rennie as its engineer. His design could hardly have been more different from that of his elegant stone Waterloo Bridge, which was being constructed at the same time. Since the City and the Thames Conservancy had opposed the new bridge on the grounds that it would obstruct navigation, the Act stated that the arches should be as wide as possible. Rennie extended the state of the art of bridge building by designing three flat cast-iron arches supporting a 42-foot-wide roadway. The centre arch, at 240 feet, was the longest of its kind ever constructed, and doubts were expressed about the stability of such a long arch. The design was examined by the eminent scientist Dr Thomas Young, who concluded that the basic design was safe but that every detail of materials and workmanship should be done with skill and accuracy.
In his autobiography, Rennie’s son, also called John, described the difficulties he encountered as his father’s chief assistant.46 His most dramatic account was of the efforts involved in acquiring and transporting the massive 20-ton granite blocks needed to encase the river-piers. He travelled to Aberdeen only to be told that such a project had never been done in Britain before and no one was willing to try. Nothing daunted, Rennie went 30 miles north to a quarry where the local workmen agreed to hew a massive 25-ton block of granite, with the encouragement of ample wages and a good supply of whisky. They loaded the block onto a cart which was eventually set in motion by the use of 14 horses. A further problem arose when they reached the turnpike and the toll-keeper did not know what toll to charge since he had never seen such a mass of stone before. Eventually, a negotiated settlement was reached and the block arrived at the nearby port of Peterhead. Here, Rennie had to agree to indemnify the ship’s captain for any loss incurred on the journey to London.
The supply of the ironwork proved an equally challenging task. Walker Bros of Rotherham was the only firm considered capable of meeting the stringent requirements of Rennie’s design, having made many of the cannons used in the Peninsular War against Napoleon. Thousands flocked to Rotherham to watch the construction of the gigantic cast-iron structures which the locals called a wonder of the world. The ironwork was successfully delivered, but the effort bankrupted the firm.
Construction work on Southwark Bridge progressed slowly, partly due to the war against France, which lasted until the eventual defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815. As usual, a number of accidents occurred, including one disastrous incident resulting in the loss of 13 lives. In a letter to The Courier of 5 October 1816, John Rennie Jr described how 15 workmen hailed a boat when they had finished working on the bridge. Two watermen approached and the whole party jumped into their boat, despite attempts by the watermen to stop them. The strong tide caused the boat to crash into a barge, and when the boat upset, everyone was precipitated into the water. A passing police boat saved two of the workmen, and the watermen, who were strong swimmers, managed to reach the riverbank. The rest were not found at the time and were presumed drowned. Four of the bodies were later recovered. Rennie added that ‘the men have been regularly warned about rushing into the boats, but to no purpose’.
The bridge was eventually opened without ceremony on 24 March 1819, as the clock of nearby St Paul’s Cathedral struck midnight. Since the prospectus had grossly underestimated the cost, which finally amounted to a staggering £800,000, there was no money left to pay for an opening spectacle. Already in 1813 one of the subscribers had warned that the bridge was likely to be a financial disaster.47 He claimed that the prospectus was misleading because the large number of people living on the south side of the river in Surrey and Kent would prefer to continue using Blackfriars or London bridges, which were by now free from toll. Therefore the estimate that Southwark Bridge would attract one-sixth of the traffic, despite the need to pay tolls, had been pure guesswork. On this basis, the subscriber demanded the right to pay a forfeit in order to withdraw from the undertaking. Needless to say, this request was not granted.
In his anger at the prospect of losing money on his shares, he objected to Rennie’s design as
the introduction of a kind of filigree edifice between two such noble structures as London and Blackfriars Bridges. The want of uniformity in our squares and streets has long been the subject of censure on the part of foreign architects. The new iron interloper spoils the noble succession of bridges including the new Strand Bridge.
Interestingly, the Strand (soon renamed Waterloo) Bridge was also designed by Rennie, and in a few years’ time Rennie’s granite structure would also replace the 600-year-old London Bridge.
The forecast of a financial disaster proved correct, because very few people used the bridge. The holders of £150,000 preference shares received an average of 1.5 per cent per annum, while the holders of the ordinary shares never received any dividends. The City Corporation conducted lengthy negotiations with the proprietors about purchasing the bridge and freeing it from toll. Initially, the sum of £230,000 was offered, but the proprietors wanted more. However, the financial situation continued to worsen and eventually, in 1868, the proprietors were forced to accept an offer of £200,000, which represented a considerable loss on the original cost of £800,000.
John Rennie’s Southwark Bridge of 1819
Even after Southwark Bridge was freed from toll, its usage was limited, partly because of the steep gradient of 1 in 18, which resulted in a hump, causing difficulties for horse-drawn traffic, and partly because the northern approach road was not convenient. The Daily Chronicle of 8 August 1903 reported that ‘you may live a long time in London without crossing Southwark Bridge and frequently it has an air of solitude’. Southwark Bridge seems also to have been almost ignored by artists and writers. The Daily News of 2 June 1921 stated that it had the fewest historical and literary associations of all London’s bridges. There are, however, some references to be found in Dickens’ works. He called it ‘the iron bridge’ in Little Dorrit, and it features in the opening scene of Our Mutual Friend, in which Gaffer Hexham searches for dead bodies in the river from his boat as he ‘floated between Southwark Bridge which is of iron and London Bridge which is of stone, as an autumn evening was closing in’. At that time, Cannon Street Railway Bridge did not intervene.
The City debated long and hard about what to do with the languishing Southwark Bridge, and several reports were issued by the Bridge House Estates Committee. Many considered that the best solution would be to build a new crossing at St Paul’s Cathedral, but the estimated cost of new approach roads at that location amounted to over one million pounds. In 1911, the City submitted a Bill to Parliament asking for authority to rebuild Sout
hwark Bridge for £261,000, as well as to construct a totally new St Paul’s bridge. In view of criticisms of the aesthetic merits of certain late-nineteenth-century crossings, it was recommended that the best architectural advice be sought in both cases. As we have seen, the St Paul’s bridge remained on the drawing board. For Southwark Bridge, the City engaged the architect Sir Ernest George (1839–1922)to design a 55-foot-wide bridge with no hump.
His steel bridge consisted of five arches instead of the three of Rennie’s Southwark Bridge. The main reason for this was that the five-arch Cannon Street Railway Bridge had been built 150 yards downstream of Southwark Bridge. The long chains of barges that plied the Thames had to twist their course with dangerous alacrity because the piers of the two original bridges were not aligned. George designed stone river-piers with pierced lunettes, carried up above the steel arches, giving character to the architecture and providing recesses on the footways. He worked with the engineering firm Mott, Hay and Anderson on the design. The £278,148 construction contract was awarded to Sir William Arrol & Co., who had also supplied the steelwork for Tower Bridge.
Southwark Bridge today
Work started in 1913 but was interrupted by the First World War. The Government commandeered the steel for military purposes but allowed work on the piers to continue so that a temporary superstructure could be added in the event of damage to other bridges. As it happened, although bombs did fall near by, no fatal damage was done to any of London’s Thames bridges in either of the world wars.
Southwark Bridge was finally completed in 1921, at a cost of £375,000. Since all the finance was provided by the Bridge House Estates, the public was not concerned at the cost overrun of nearly £100,000. The bridge was opened by George V and Queen Mary on 6 June. In view of the less than glorious history of Rennie’s Southwark Bridge, many suggestions were made to change the name. The favoured options were the King George or the Victory Bridge. Although the Strand Bridge had successfully been renamed Waterloo after the victory over Napoleon, the record of naming bridges after kings or distinguished people was not good. Examples include the Edward VII Bridge, which was soon known as Kew Bridge; the Victoria Bridge, which was later renamed Chelsea Bridge; and the William Pitt Bridge, which was changed to Blackfriars Bridge when Pitt lost his popularity. George V himself sensibly decided to keep the old name. This decision was welcomed by The Times of 7 June 1921, which pointed out that the new bridge had been constructed during time of war just like its predecessor and that it was better to maintain tradition with such an important structure as a Thames bridge rather than indulge the fancy for some ‘new-fangled nomenclature’.
Crossing the River: The History of London's Thames River Bridges From Richmond to the Tower Page 23
