Only a B listed building?

Not quite like for like replacement is it?

So not a good look for Scottish engineering if the best solution to refurbishment is to reduce the projection of the canopy.

Carbon fibre might be a step too far but surely 90 years of material science progress plus the development of FE analysis could have delivered a solution in keeping with the original layout.

We don't seem to be able to detail any more.
No wonder we struggle to build a ferry.

Its a friday afternoon, I know and normally, I just bite my tongue at FBoTs excursions and pronouncements on his Dan Dare understanding of architecture, but in this instance i feel compelled to make an exception.
So, FBoT opines that a 2024 16% reduction in a previous cantilever of 1951 (when materials and availability had been scarce casts Scottish Engineering not in a good light?
Well, ther ye go! A whole profession kyboshed just like that, due to a minimal change (no doubt after a trade off and compromise) after almost 75 years of huge changes to building codes and predatory bureaucratic advancement! Gee Whizz, must do better!
The last time I tested carbon fibre out was on an operating theatre table, and i am fairly sure that the permissable deflection exceeded that required for refurbishment building purposes. But right enough, even though the theatre was cold due to the aircon, there was not any noticeable wind loading as far as i could tell being well sedated at the time. So who knows?
And then there are the last two non sequiturs to cap it all off, just lobbed in ther. Apparently, somehow the collective WE do not seem to be able to detail any more. The trouble with FBoT here though is that i dont think he knows what a detail, or the meaning of the word, in this context actually is.
And then thers the classic we canny build a ferry. As if Structural Engineers are also responsible for the doings of a thoroughly corrupt political administration.
Please do me a favour FBoT, and stick tae readin they comics n gie us aw peace wull ye?

#3 -- I take it you aren't an engineer then.
Plus you don't have a sense of humour or much experience of carbon fibre.

The reduction in the canopy overhang is just lazy engineering -- quick / bodge it / scarper and get the PR department to come up with a few warm phrases to hide the laziness and lack of effort in the engineering solution.

Design of anything is in the detail -- the complexity of the solution / how it interacts with its surroundings / the ability to deal with engineering change / robustness and longevity.

90 years of engineering and materials science progress delivering 16% less output -- not a good look / not a good design / not a good solution.

My thoughts -- cantilever beam in compression due to cables in tension might have been a good place to start. Pretty cheap as well.

Or failing that -- if the complexity is not appropriate -- change the profile of the beam and find more depth. Box sections have their uses.

Does it really matter though? People won't notice the difference and the canopy will fulfil its function whilst also looking almost identical to the original. It must be so debilitating being so negative and miserable FBOT.

Not negative / miserable -- just wanting the engineers to do a complete job.

It is a listed building after all.

Just highlights how we are in the shambles we are in at the moment -- quick / bodge it / scarper -- and no-one seems to care.

Arguing pointlessly and wasting your energies over a few centimetres of cantilever while whole buildings are lost through deliberate inaction is not a good look.