CARNIVAL is going too far but bells rang and there was a real sense of celebration with the re-opening of Eastham Bridge.

The relief is understandable because it must have been incredibly difficult and expensive for people faced with a long diversion after the bridge collapsed in May 2016.

But now a new bridge is in place and so that is alright. Or is it?

In all of the relief, it is perhaps easy to forget that there are questions, some of which have not been properly answered.

Instead of celebrating the opening of the new bridge, it is worth remembering that, but for good fortune, this could be the anniversary of a terrible tragedy.

The first traffic over the new bridge was a school minibus taking children from Lindridge School back home to Eastham.

On the spring afternoon when the original Eastham Bridge collapsed, there were school buses travelling towards it. It is pure good fortune that those buses were not on the bridge when it fell into the River Teme.

The explanation given for the collapse appears to be the impact of erosion of the foundations by the flow of the river.

Yet we are told that the bridge had been properly inspected and given a green light in December 2015, just five months before the collapse.

Surely it is reasonable to expect that a bridge over a river will be subject to erosion and so why was this not picked up when the inspection was made in December 2015?

The bridge collapsed on a calm May afternoon. As far we know there is no suggestion that the bridge had been hit, causing any damage and the flow of the River Teme at the time was neither especially fast nor the level high.

At the time, there had been a suggestion that, in the days before the collapse, the bridge had been heavily used by trucks carrying stone.

This issue was never really cleared up but, in any event, as there was no weight restriction on the bridge, there is nothing to suggest that there was anything against the law.

However, it is, perhaps, not unreasonable that people may find it odd that there was no weight restriction on a bridge that was built in the 1790s to carry nothing more substantial than a heavily laden horse-drawn farm cart.

Then there is the question of if the new bridge is really suitable.

By putting the new structure on the same line and with the same dimensions as the original, it has been possible to have a replacement in place in less than a year.

However, given that the traffic needs of the early 21st century are so different to that of the late 18th century, it does beg the question as to whether the new structure is really fit for purpose in the short, never mind the medium or long, term.

There is relief at the new bridge but whether this will convert to satisfaction with what has been provided in the coming years is less likely.