From: Geoff North, Leeds.
THE aerial picture of the floods at Tadcaster (The Yorkshire Post, January 6) strongly suggests that a possible use of the old railway bridge over the Wharfe, north of the current collapsed bridge, should be considered a temporary alternative – as at least a foot crossing.
It would, of course, be necessary to build access roads to and from the bridge but this might be worth the cost given the planned 12 months that the repair of the current bridge will take. It has obviously stood the forces of the floods better than the road bridge. Being much higher, it would serve as a possible alternative in the likelihood of further flooding.
From: Ashley Watson, York Road, Bilton in Ainsty.
ALTHOUGH I don’t live in Tadcaster, I have walked the river bank from the area of the damaged road bridge upstream toward Newton Kyme and seem to recall that some quarter mile North there is a substantial former railway bridge which I’m sure I recall seeing people walking over.
If that is the case, why is it not being used? Surely it would aid able-bodied pedestrians to get from one part of the town to the other without having to make the massive road detour.
From: Malcolm Smith, Bracken Park, Scarcroft.
I CANNOT believe the constant short-sightedness surrounding the building of a temporary bridge at Tadcaster. As an ex-Sapper, albeit some 60 years ago in Cyprus, my Squadron could and did erect Bailey Bridges of this distance, suitable for foot and vehicular traffic within two days. Could I advise the powers-that-be that 21 Engineer Regiment are stationed at Ripon?
From: Bob Watson, Baildon.
WE are told (The Yorkshire Post, January 6) that it will take around one year to replace the viaduct over the river Wharfe at Tadcaster which was destroyed in the recent floods. However, consider this. On November 16, 1866, the railway viaduct over the River Aire at Apperley Bridge was swept away by raging floodwaters. Believe it or not, a new structure was in place by January 1, 1867 – a mere 46 days later – which still stands.
From: ME Wright, Harrogate.
SIR Bernard Ingham we are not “begging” for more, as you claim (The Yorkshire Post, January 6). We are demanding it and if you wish to understand the reasons, why not pay us a visit?