Bridge List - North Lancs Loop Line

[Andy873]

Attached is my list of bridges for the North Lancashire loop line. This list has taken several years to compile because I wanted to record as many of the original bridge names as possible, also a problem was when was a culvert just a culvert or when was one classed as a bridge - Not as easy as it initially sounds...

Originally it is thought there were around 40 bridges at the time of the full opening of the loop in 1877:

Source: The Blackburn Standard, Saturday, October 20, 1877. Page 8, Column 3.

By the time the Great Harwood section closed (2 Nov 1964) the were 55 bridges for just a nine mile route, all were in situ by 1909.

Here are my observations:

The line was built by the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Company (L&Y) and as mentioned to me by @Springs Branch they liked to name many bridges after local farmers, names like Campbell, Robert Lee, Webster's. Two of the bridges were named after the Shuttleworth family of Gawthorpe Hall, Padiham, and others after lane and road names.

The metal central span bridges were a combination of Wrought or Cast Iron. Wrought Iron for the longer spans, Cast for the shorter ones, and all except one had two outer long girders connected together with multiple cross girders, this is best described by imagining a ladder, the rungs being the cross girders. The one exception was Mare Park Road under bridge, here they simply used multiple long girders, the name by the way comes from the fact that close to this bridge there used to be horse racing in Padiham, hence the reference to Mare, a female horse.

Regarding culverts - All I can say is that it looks like any culvert around 8 to 10 foot wide was classed as a bridge, under that it was just a culvert. Initially it was probably down to Sturges Meek, chief engineer of the L&Y, but later perhaps the LMS then BR might have a different opinion.

Central span length - BR for one called the span the length of the track had to cross under or over something. For example, Bridge No. 54, this was a footbridge over the loop, and BR say its span was 12 foot but I know the L&Y wanted (give or take a couple of inches) 28 foot clearance over the line (double track line). In short, if a bridge went over the loop, the span was the bridge's width, if however a bridge carried the line over something, then the span was the length of the bridge!

I hope you all find the list interesting, and please free to ask me any questions about it.

Please see attached bridge list.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The L&Y was unusual - along with the GWR - of not showing numbers on bridges. Possibly they did not allocate them.
I'm not sure if it was universal but I've seen bridges on the ex L&Y with bridge number plates of LNWR design but with 'LMS' at the top (instead of 'LNWR'). Bridge plates disappeared from the late sixties when collecting them caught on.
Presumably there was an L&Y/LMS/BR Bridge Register, might possibly have survived.

 

[Andy873]

The L&Y was unusual - along with the GWR - of not showing numbers on bridges. Possibly they did not allocate them.

That's a very good point you make here. What I can tell you is that I've seen quite a few of the original contract drawings for the loop line bridges and none have a bridge number assigned them in the drawings. Only things like:

Bridge at Peg 43
Mr. Clark's.

One other drawing shows the design for an occupation stone arch bridge and simply states "Four of these" with no names assigned to them.

I wonder if naming these occupation bridges after the farmers who were going to use them was a bit of a ploy by the L&Y, a sort of ego boost to the local farmer who's just had his field cut in half? They could always say - That's your bridge and we've named it after you!

I think one advantage of naming bridges (along with their distance from the nearest mile post) is that once you number the bridges that's okay, but if you add a new one then you may have to renumber all the subsequent bridges after it - unless you assign the new bridge a letter, Bridge No. 15 A. What's interesting is that BR was still using the original names in 1964.

Presumably there was an L&Y/LMS/BR Bridge Register, might possibly have survived

Yes there is one and I know who's got it, very sadly I contacted him about a month ago, he always replies, but not this time... This is the very reason I was determined to complete the bridge list and share it, hopefully it will appear on the Disused Stations site soon.

If you are researching a railway line, have another look at those bridges, they are more interesting than you think!

 

[leezer3]

I wonder if naming these occupation bridges after the farmers who were going to use them was a bit of a ploy by the L&Y, a sort of ego boost to the local farmer who's just had his field cut in half? They could always say - That's your bridge and we've named it after you!

It's likely to be far simpler than that.

I think you're forgetting that this was an era before accurate maps for the man on the ground or distance measuring. Similarly, no computers or magic filing systems.

Therefore, you need a unique identifier for each structure which you can then give to the man on the ground who has to deal with periodic maintenance and whoever updates the records etc.
Names vs. numbers is then just a matter of pure preference; it doesn't matter in the slightest when you're sorting and filing by hand.

 

[Rescars]

Did the BR(W) means of identifying bridges by marking them in M/C (miles and chains) originate with the GWR. Anyone know when this practice started? Did it go back as far as the Broad Gauge?.

 

[Mr. SW]

I've no idea, but I did find the GWR's habit of not numbering bridges a trifle irksome when I was researching my then local branch line to Brentford. I found a couple of of gradient diagrams to see if they could bring some light to the situation but these seem to owe more to fevered imagination of the draughtsman than to actuality.

 

[bramling]

I've no idea, but I did find the GWR's habit of not numbering bridges a trifle irksome when I was researching my then local branch line to Brentford. I found a couple of of gradient diagrams to see if they could bring some light to the situation but these seem to owe more to fevered imagination of the draughtsman than to actuality.

A lot of GWR bridges were, by some point, numbered - but the western region seemed to persist in preferring to use miles and chains, which has continued to both Network Rail and those bridges maintained by the BRB residiary.

I have bridge registers for most of the GWR and a good proportion of lines have both a number sequence and miles/chains. I’m pretty sure Brentford is included.

If anyone does have any thoughts on where to find bridge registers for the L&Y, and also the North Staffs, and most of the Scottish companies, then I’d certainly be interested.

 

[Mr. SW]

I’m pretty sure Brentford is included

It is, but I didn't know it at the time.

 

[Andy873]

Thanks everyone for the replies.

If anyone does have any thoughts on where to find bridge registers for the L&Y, and also the North Staffs, and most of the Scottish companies, then I’d certainly be interested.

Nope, no idea where we might find some of these, but if you do ever get an L&Y one please let me know.

Most of the wrought iron bridges appear to have had a raised central girder which ties were connected to. These were U shaped used to strengthen the bridges and the were four for each cross girder. Be careful with the OS maps, even the very detailed town maps don't always show these central girders, for example, the 1956-1968 OS map shows no central girder for Station Road bridge No. 10 but does show one for Green Lane bridge No. 8 - In reality both bridges have them, a virtual walk under them clearly shows the U shaped ties.

Question - How quickly could you replace a metal bridge? Bridge No. 36 (Hey's Lane) was replaced by a steel one in 1930 and the line would have been very busy then.