Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
A good question, it belongs to a friend who believes it is. I will see if he can supply a picture of the back to see if it has a British postcard backing, although that in itself might not be 100% definitive on the point.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is the back. A fairly standard British postcard backing. This makes it more likely it is a British image than not. It’s not impossible it could be a wartime snap brought home and printed here, but more often than not such images were printed abroad and have the French “carte postal” on the reverse.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Although nothing like the scale of WW2, quite a lot of damage was caused by air raids across the country in WW1. Most sources cite around 100 raids in total by either Zeppelins or aircraft causing approx 4,900 casualties by the end of the war.
A further point I’d make is that the damage is comparatively insignificant and hardly worthy of a photo or a crowd of onlookers unless there was some novelty as to the cause, which perhaps makes a WW1 air raid more likely. Amid the destruction of France or Belgium, or the devastation of the WW2 blitz, is it likely someone would be whipping out a camera to photograph a chipped parapet? Whereas Zeppelin raids, especially the early ones, were big news as the idea of an enemy attack from the air on home soil was novel to the British public.
It was the development of the Gotha IV bomber, the first with the range to reach London, that prompted King George V of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to change the family name to Windsor.
It was the development of the Gotha IV bomber, the first with the range to reach London, that prompted King George V of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to change the family name to Windsor.
The boys are wearing typical British school clothing of around ~1900
The damage I'd suggest is due to a lightning strike
The dolphin is possibly indicative of a reservoir/waterworks
Any reservoirs crossed by an iron or steel girder bridge?
The typeface on the back of that card is very distinctive. Obviously it's art nouveau, which fits with a date of around WW1.
Ideally you would find out which photographer or card printer used it, but I can't see how to do a systematic search for that so it would need a lot of luck. The new Google image search (Lens) is no use at all, worse than the old one for a pure image search (i.e. ignoring the words).
However, you can search for the typeface, and there are several that match it closely. Most are recent commercial ones, but one - Borghese - is listed as a 1904 original. Which is all very well, but probably of no help in identifying what's in the picture!
I can't make sense of the structure!
The girder on the RHS seems to be the start of something quite big going back behind the group in the picture, yet there seems to be another abutment or pier not much further back. More surprisingly, the steep steps seem to go down to something behind the photographer or at his level but there is no sign of the big bridge continuing back in this direction...
Maybe he is standing on the canal towpath which isn't far below the bottom visible step. You would still expect some indication of the structure continuing back towards the photographer's right shoulder though, unless it was just something like a small masonry arch bridge.
I don’t suppose it’s there, but Hull and the surrounding area suffered comparatively heavily from WW1 air raids. One online source reports that on 25th September 1917 the Hull & Barnsley railway bridge at Highgate was damaged by bomb splinters.
I can't make sense of the structure!
The girder on the RHS seems to be the start of something quite big going back behind the group in the picture, yet there seems to be another abutment or pier not much further back. More surprisingly, the steep steps seem to go down to something behind the photographer or at his level but there is no sign of the big bridge continuing back in this direction...
Maybe he is standing on the canal towpath which isn't far below the bottom visible step. You would still expect some indication of the structure continuing back towards the photographer's right shoulder though, unless it was just something like a small masonry arch bridge.
I think the viewpoint is looking across nearly perpendicular to whatever is going over the bridge. But because there’s a bike up there I’d suggest that’s probably a road, (as post #4). If it’s railway why bother carrying your bike up there? The furthest of the two piers will be on the left of the bridge if you were to the left and looking toward it? So the view of the girder will be just the very end, the other girder on the far side of the bridge will be hidden behind it. Then to me, the existence of two decorated piers possibly means the higher level is the more important route. Of course there may be two more equally well decorated piers out of shot well to the right.
I think the viewpoint is looking across nearly perpendicular to whatever is going over the bridge. But because there’s a bike up there I’d suggest that’s probably a road, (as post #4). If it’s railway why bother carrying your bike up there? The furthest of the two piers will be on the left of the bridge if you were to the left and looking toward it? So the view of the girder will be just the very end, the other girder on the far side of the bridge will be hidden behind it. Then to me, the existence of two decorated piers possibly means the higher level is the more important route. Of course there may be two more equally well decorated piers out of shot well to the right.
Yes I would definitely agree about perpendicular. The end of the girder seems very deep compared to the width between the pillars, so perhaps it is the end of a truss structure rather than a solid girder?
Yes I would definitely agree about perpendicular. The end of the girder seems very deep compared to the width between the pillars, so perhaps it is the end of a truss structure rather than a solid girder?
I think that’s a good call - it’s possible it’s the end of a truss, rather than a plated girder. The photographer was definitely not helping by cutting the right side off where he did - perhaps he was concentrating on the people?
One thing that puzzles me is the awkward relationship between the girder and the pylon. All the details look wrong - the gap between them, the moulding round the pylon near its base which goes through that gap, the height of the pylon and the position of the rectangular recess in its face that do not match the girder at all. It is hard to see anyone, whether architect, engineer, or draughtsman, drawing it that way. So was that girder a replacement for a different original?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
