Bridges And buildings

Bridge-building tales

 Here are a couple of tales about the building of bridges in 19th Century Madras as related to me by civil engineer D.H. Rao who has made delving into the histories of the city’s bridges his hobby. 

These are stories arising out of Government’s practice of getting estimates for civil work and then finding the costs have been exceeded. Inquiries follow, then as now, but what happens next?

 Nothing seems to change.

In the case of the 1840 18-arch Elphinstone Bridge over the Adyar (now lying derelict but looking solid, while constant maintenance work goes on on its neighbour, the new Thiru Vi Ka Bridge), on its completion, the Military Board declared it a magnificent piece of work.

 But Governor Lord Elphinstone did not think so; he wanted to know from the Board why the cost had exceeded the estimate, particularly when it had been approved by the Court of Directors in London with the proviso that the approved amount should on no account be exceeded.

In his reply, the Superintending Engineer cited the costs of two other bridges he had built to show that the costs incurred in building the Elphinstone Bridge were on the same lines.

 The extra cost incurred was only because the river was always full of water and several persons had to be employed in constantly bailing out the water to keep the coffer dams dry while raising the foundation.

 This was totally unexpected. The arguments went on for months, but in the end the matter was happily resolved to the engineer’s satisfaction.

It was in another instance too, but in this case it caused the builder of the 1805 St. George’s Bridge (now the Periyar Bridge) considerable more concern for months.

 Lt. Thomas Fraser was not only censured for the cost over-run but also had his commission and other benefits withheld. 

In this case, Fraser justified the excess expenditure by pointing out that after the foundation work was completed, he was asked by the Council to re-align the bridge. So, he once again had to sink wells for the foundation, piers and abutments.

 Further changes were ordered by the Council from time to time and he carried out the Council’s orders every time. He was therefore not responsible for the final cost — which was entirely due to his only having carried out the orders of the Council. In this case too, the arguments continued for long, but eventually Governor Lord William Bentinck accepted Fraser’s appeal and restored all his benefits.

On a third occasion, a bridge on South Beach Road needed substantial repairs. These were carried out, but a couple of years later the Military Board sought further funds to carry out additional repairs to the bridge. 

The Governor was not ready to sanction the amount until he was told why the bridge had not been regularly inspected for maintenance, who was responsible for such inspection, and “why he had not carried out his work sincerely.” What eventually happened in this instance is not known, but what is clear is that, at one time, heads of government kept a sharp eye on even comparatively minor expenditures

 But then those were more leisurely times, weren’t they, and heads of government had time on their hands.

 S Muthiah : H :19 Oct 2014