The fault which led to the closure of the Forth Road Bridge could not have been reasonably foreseen, experts have told MSPs.
Holyrood's Infrastructure Committee has heard a seized pin caused the crack which led to the shutdown of the bridge for almost three weeks in December.
MSPs were told the response to the fault by the bridge's operator was "entirely appropriate" while its efforts to get the structure repaired and reopened were a "remarkable achievement".
The committee took evidence from experts who have managed other bridges around the UK as it continued its inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the closure.
Peter Hill, bridgemaster of the Humber Bridge, said: "I can only say, knowing the competencies of the team under Barry Colford (former Forth Road Bridge bridgemaster), I can't see that this incident could have been otherwise determined or pre-warned in any other practical way.
"As to the subsequent actions of the team that are now looking after the bridge and reacting to this emergency, it seems to have been entirely appropriate."
Richard Fish, independent engineering consultant, said: "The cause, as we have discussed, would have been very difficult to predict.
"The effect, as in the closure of the bridge, that was taken not as a light decision.
"I wouldn't question that decision made by the engineers who are at the sharp end and faced with that sort of issue. The decision had to be taken around public safety."
John Evans, a consultant for civil and structural engineering firm Flint and Neill, described the efforts to reopen the bridge as a "remarkable achievement".
He added: "I don't think you would have foreseen what the particular failure was but the idea of having contingency measures in place for when something catastrophic happens might be looked at in the future."
He said such measures could include pre-planned diversion routes.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel