HAVING read the article (February 16), describing in glowing terms the completion of the Gem Bridge across the Walkham Valley, including the dismissive way in which the removal of the previous bridge was described as having been 'dynamited' I am prompted to correct several points.

Firstly, the previous railway bridge was not a 'Brunel' bridge. His original bridge was of a timber superstructure which was replaced in 1910 by the steel bridge mounted on the original masonary piers which were raised in brickwork.

The second point I would like to clarify is that the demolition of this bridge was a very carefully planned and executed operation designed specifically to avoid any damage to the woodland and valley bottom. This included the careful 'felling' of the piers in the line of the railway so as to avoid any masonary debris in the woodland which, at that time in the 1960s, was considered to be a precious asset; the valley from Bedford Bridge to Grenofen and Double Waters being a very popular picnic and recreational area. It was in this connection that I was involved.

The demolition was carried out by removal of all steel superstructure back on to the railway track and hence to Horrabridge Goods yard, all at high level.

The piers were then felled by carefully removing the outer casing at ground level by the use of a low explosive to push the casing off in the direction of felling and allow the piers, with some guidance, to fall each on its neighbour in a line. This was not a dynamiting exercise!

Large blocks of the felled masonary were then broken up and spread and the valley allowed to re-establish itself.

Moving to the new bridge, I understood the original concept was to enable cyclists to cross the valley on the route of the old railway and top leave the valley unmolested.

What have we got? We have a new vehicular access from the A386 which is traffic light controlled, a huge construction site and scar in the landscape which is now to have as an afterthought, a picnic site, all of which effectively divides the Walkham Valley in half by introducing vehicles into its very heart and is nothing to do with the bridge's original concept.

I know the money for all these cycle works comes from an outside source and the bonanza has 'got to be spent'. However, I understand the money can only be spent on capital works but could someone please come clean and tell me who is to pay for the maintenance of this? Is there to be lighting on the bridge as well as the tunnel to be paid for? Is the tunnel to be supervised or left to the vandals and the flashers or are we to be told there will be so many cyclists that it will be self-policing and we will see gangs of them mending the fencing and repairing the tarmac.

Edwin Anstead

Priory Close

Tavistock