Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Movable Span Bridge St udy Volume 2: Bascule and Swing Span Bridges
Ian Berger
ABSTRACT
The original Sydney Harbour Bridge Arch Maintenance Units (AMU) are engineering marvels inextricably
bound to a national icon. Yet following decommissioning from the Bridge in 1997, they were neglected, and
by 2005, were in poor condition. This paper discusses the process of conserving the AMUs, and the various
challenges, constraints and opportunities encountered. Identification of the appropriate conservation
approach and methodology was guided by the requirements of the various stakeholders, who included the
client, communities and large collecting institutions. In addition to these factors, the approach was affected
by the need to consider statutory requirements for the treatment of significant items, the retention of
materials considered hazardous, and the challenges in lifting, transport and storage for a large-scale
industrial movable heritage item.
1 INTRODUCTION
The four Arch Maintenance Units (AMUs) were already a constant feature on the structure of the Sydney
Harbour Bridge well before its completion in the early 1930s. Although they were not fixed parts of the
Bridge itself, fixed and unchanging, they were objects completely unique to the Bridge, an iconic national
landmark. They were designed and constructed specifically for use on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and
employed in the various painting and maintenance tasks required for its upkeep.
As is common for industrial equipment, all four AMUs were decommissioned and replaced with new
maintenance cranes in 1997, as a result of the changing requirements in OHS legislation, advancing
technologies, and the Bridge‟s integration into the bourgeoning tourism industry. The AMUs were stored in
various outdoor depots where their condition inevitably deteriorated until 2006 when their significance was
once again illuminated, this time by the compilation of a Movable Heritage Database, commissioned by the
NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) and prepared by International Conservation Services (ICS). After
almost a decade of neglect, a move was made towards the preservation of these significance items.
Discussions between the stakeholders and heritage specialists identified that the ideal future for these items
was either as an outdoor public display item, preferably with a continued association with the Bridge, and/or
in the care of a collecting institution with a known focus for engineering and industrial history. The
conservation approaches were formulated around these goals.
2 THE ‘MAINTENANCE CRANES’
2.1 HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE
The AMUs are historically significant as objects directly associated with the Sydney Harbour Bridge (“the
Bridge”). The AMUs consist of original, intact fabric, significant as an example of early-twentieth century
engineering and part of the technical achievement evident in the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Although the AMUs demonstrate the characteristics of late-1920s hoist technology, they are a rare
configuration of the components comprising crane technology, and are unique to the Sydney Harbour
Bridge.
The holistic vision of both JJC Bradfield (chief engineer) and Dorman & Long (contractor/builder) to
incorporate maintenance into the bridge design also contributes to the unique quality of the AMUs. The
distinctive profiles of the AMUs in changing locations across the Bridge arches contribute to the Bridge‟s
overall appearance. Involved in the continued maintenance of the Bridge for over seventy years, the AMUs
have a strong associative significance with over three generations of workers who have worked on the
structure.
Four AMUs were originally designed to provide access to the Bridge for continual maintenance; two servicing
the south half of the Bridge (installed in 1930), and two servicing the north (installed in 1931). During
construction in the 1930s, two 580-tonne electric creeper cranes moved inwards from the shore carrying
Figure 1: Historic view of southwest AMU on Bridge. Figure 2: Historic view of northwest AMU on Bridge.
2.2 DESCRIPTION
There were four original AMUs, each generally constructed to the same design and comprising the same
elements. The AMUs are constructed mostly of steel and timber, and consist of four main elements:
2.2.1 Chassis
The chassis is a riveted solid frame, constructed of 150mm channel steel. The large cast iron traversing cogs
are mounted to the chassis, as well as the motors and operator controls that allow the AMU to traverse the
bridge arch. The chassis was originally painted with a lead-based outdoor paint system. Expanded steel
mesh sheeting is laid on the top of the chassis to provide a working platform. On the chassis are two
containment boxes (“cable drums”) housing large spools to which a length of steel cable is wound, facilitating
the raising and lowering of the gantries. Four detachable “kickrollers” attach to the side of the chassis,
working to clamp the chassis to the arch of the bridge, and stabilising the AMU as it traverses the arch. A
secondary hinged chassis sub-assembly is attached to the main AMU chassis. It provides a base for the
operator‟s cabin and permits adjustment of the cabin to a level position according to the position of the AMU
on the bridge arches.
The chassis moved along the arch by winching itself along a heavy steel chain. However, the section of
chain was limited in length. When the AMU reached the end of the chain, operators needed to clamp the
AMU to the Bridge, and manhandle the heavy chain to the next anchorage point on the arch before
proceeding.
reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material.
Reconstruction means returning the fabric to a known earlier state and is distinguished from
restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric.
Adaptation means modifying a place to suit to the existing use or purpose.
Interpretation is required where the cultural significance of an item is not readily apparent, and should
be used to enhance the understanding and enjoyment, and be culturally appropriate.
With the above processes in mind, and applying them to large-scale industrial heritage items such as the
AMUs, conservation treatment could have been aimed towards one of three potential outcomes:
1. Reinstatement. Bringing them back to full working order would be an ideal outcome because in
addition to repairing and restoring all elements of the AMU to be fully operable, it would also allow for
reinstating the original use and emphasising its significant historical context. However, this has
significant challenges. Firstly, it would be virtually impossible to find or recreate a situation where the
AMUs would be in operation as originally intended on the Bridge. Secondly, the implications of
bringing the AMUs in line with current OHS legislation in order to operate would have resulted in
substantial impacts on the original construction of the AMUs.
2. Preservation. This outcome would entail protecting the original fabric as is, and retaining as much
original material as possible. Minimising any changes to the original fabric ensures that aspects
1
The Burra Charter (1999), Australia ICOMOS Incorporated
least two of the four AMUs would remain intact and be moved to secure storage.
It was the general consensus that at least one of the AMUs should be interpreted for public display.
The ideal solution would be for the AMU to be placed or positioned within the context of the Bridge.
This will ensure that the important association between the AMUs and the Bridge is maintained and
the link between the two significant items is clear and immediate.
Storage, public safety, security and future maintenance are also important matters that will need to be
dealt with once it is determined how the AMUs should be treated; there is a general assumption that
the RTA will be funding majority of the works.
possible.
Options for the future treatment of remaining two of four AMUs still undetermined. Suggestions for
treatment included continuing to look to institutions to receive as gift or loan both in Australia and
overseas, or disposal.
4 AMU FOR RESTORATION AND DISPLAY
Conservation work on the AMU nominated for display began in April 2009. However, preparatory works
required had commenced several months prior. In this period before work, the methodology was negotiated
and finalised, and specialist contractors in lifting, transport and hazardous materials management were
sourced in order to achieve a smooth delivery for these significant heritage items. Conservation work to this
AMU can be considered restoration and reconstruction, in the sense that the fabric was returned to a known
earlier state, with introduction of some new materials (particularly paint, but minor other components as well).
4.1 CONSTRAINTS AND CHALLENGES
Restoration of the first AMU was difficult because all obstacles encountered during the conservation work
were new and unexpected.
The challenge here was that it took some effort to see beyond the conventional idea of retaining everything,
which is the most common view taken in conservation, and aim towards reaching a result aesthetically
pleasing for public display.
How we approached the conservation treatment was also significantly influenced by the fact that the AMU
contained unstable hazardous materials, namely flaking lead-based paint. This meant that every action
undertaken needed to consider whether there was a health or environmental consequence. This
consideration had a flow-on effect to how we contained the hazardous materials during lifting and transport
prior to treatment.
4.2 CONSERVATION METHODOLOGY - RESTORATION
The scope of work was developed during the planning stages of the project, determined primarily by the
RTA, in consultation with ICS. A set of performance parameters for the restored AMU were established to
guide the decision-making process. These performance parameters included:
Occupational Health & Safety – The design is required to consider the OH&S implications of the
display. Items to be considered include trips, slips & falls surrounding the display including pavement
details and transitions.
Durability – The design of the access restriction is required to consider the durability of the
components given the exposure conditions evident in the vicinity of the Bridge. The design of
connections and other sections of the works should consider the durability implications of those
particular details.
Security – Security is critical in the design and configuration of the proposed display. The display is
required to be designed in such a manner that prevents the climbing of the structure and eliminates
be considered and mitigated during the design stage.
Functionality – the display will be located within a functioning open area on the harbour foreshore.
The functionality of the display should relate with and complement the surrounding environment.
Heritage – the Sydney Harbour Bridge is one of the most significant heritage items in Australia, and
as such the construction of any structure nearby needs to account for any impact on the heritage
significance of the item.
An inventory was taken of the AMU with industrial heritage specialist Tony Brassil (Godden Mackay Logan),
which identified how the array of parts found throughout the depot fitted together and operated as a single
Bridge Arch Maintenance Unit. Once all the parts were identified and a brief understanding of their condition
was noted, we were able to determine what work needed to be carried out. Essentially, work types could be
divided into four groups; retention, removal, replacement and repair. Before any physical work could take
place, further pre-work documentation was required including various management plans for safe working,
lifting, transport, and exposure to hazardous materials.
The various repairs and treatments are summarised in Table 1:
Table 1: Summary of restoration works.
Original Original Replaced Original
AMU Part Name retained removed with New repaired Detail of repair / Surface treatment
Blast and paint
Cabin roof was sealed with waterproof membrane
Cabin (external)
Figure 5: Restored AMU, before treatment. Figure 6: Restored AMU, after treatment.
Figure 7: Cable drum with missing jib pin, before Figure 8: New stainless steel jib pins, fabricated and
treatment installed, after treatment (note that jib not yet installed
pending relocation for display of AMU)
Figure 11: Proposed installation of AMU in Bradfield Park, Kirribilli beneath the Bridge
The proposals were submitted to North Sydney Council for approval, but the elected representatives of the
local community struggled to see the visual attraction in a piece of industrial heritage installed in a
picturesque area such as Bradfield Park. Eventually the plan to install one of the AMUs, which would have
been placed under the care of North Sydney Council and retained the association with between AMU and
Bridge, was rejected.
Figure 12: Preserved AMU, before treatment. Figure 13: Preserved AMU, after treatment.
Minimal repairs were carried out to this AMU (see Table 2). As opposed to the first AMU which was destined
for public outdoor installation, the second AMU was not treated to serve the same end purpose. The
intention for this AMU was to be an example of a complete and unchanged AMU of the four originals, an
archival record of industrial machinery unique to the Sydney Harbour Bridge and surviving intact from the
early 1930s. Because there was no need to prepare this item for public viewing and interaction, things such
as non-friable lead-based paint and asbestos cement sheet, broken window glazing and deteriorated timber
elements were all retained. New elements were only fabricated if it was necessary for interpretation or to
permit reassembly in future.
Being an archival record of what originally existed, measured architectural drawings were commissioned and
prepared to illustrate all extant parts and how they fit together as one unit. A soft canvas fabric cover was
designed and custom measured and made to fit the AMU, as an additional protective measure against
external elements. Finally, a custom built storage trolley was designed and constructed by the NMA in
consultation with ICS, in order to provide the item with appropriate care and protection whilst in storage and
during any future transport.
Table 2: Summary of changes to elements during preservation works.
Original Original Replaced Original
AMU Part Name Detail of repair / Surface treatment
retained removed with New repaired
Door locks repaired and new keys cut
Cabin (external)
Cabin (internal)
Cabin access ladder
Chassis
Gantries
Gantry floorboards
Gantry toolboxes
Gantry slings
Gantry pulleys
Jib arms
Original pins cut on removal from Bridge; new 3-
Jib backstraps
Jib pins
part jib pins required to permit reassembly, and
to avoid substantial deconstruction of the AMU
to reinstall the pins
We acknowledge the following key contributors:
International Conservation Services – Julian Bickersteth, David West, Fiona Tennant, Erin Watson,
Ian Trapnell, Karina Acton, Rachael Crompton, Eleanor Sampaga, Eoin O‟Suilleabhain
NSW Roads and Traffic Authority – Vladimir Shopov, Stephen Sherwin, Bobby Yazdani, Naresh
Narendiran, Sada Sadadcharan, Rachael McMullan
National Museum of Australia – Mathew Trinca, Carol Cooper, Denise Mackenzie, Nicki Smith
North Sydney Council – David Banbury
SUBCONTRACTORS
Access Scaffolding – Peter Battiston
Carl Williams Contracting – Carl Williams
Godden Mackay Logan – Geoff Ashley, Tony Brassil
Hughes Trueman – Alex Been, John Butterworth, Russell Dunn
Hyder Consulting – Dr Richard Barnes
IMP Coatings – Albert Nixon
P & D Envirotech – Paul Dickinson, Dave Riches, Brett Riches
Pattons Awnings and Boat Trimmers – Tom Gastin