Runcorn Railway Bridge

[shakey1961]

Hi all. Firstly, please excuse my layman's language when trying to describe things.

I've been looking at the height of this bridge, and the information I've found says the clearance from the track to the high water level is 22.9m.

I can see on various pictures the supporting "uprights" in the river bed are wider, and where they "chamfer" they appear to correspond with the level of the ground either side of the river.

What I would like to know - as the river is obviously a lot lower than the surrounding ground, how high is the viaduct from the ground? Obviously less than 22.9m.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runcorn_Railway_Bridge#/media/File:Runcorn_Railway_Bridge.jpg

Many thanks for your help.

 

[furnessvale]

Can't help with the main question but I believe the clearance height is set by the ship canal rather than the river, the canal being somewhat higher than the river.

 

[notlob.divad]

Can't help with the main question but I believe the clearance height is set by the ship canal rather than the river, the canal being somewhat higher than the river.

I would be amazed at the foresight in doing that. Given the railway bridge was completed in 1868 and construction of the ship canal only started in 1887.

 

[Dr A.Johnston]

Bridge clearance is min 75ft above spring tide to meet admiralty requirements for Masted vessels working on the river at that time. However due to silting there is very little traffic nowadays of any kind going up river, if I recall correctly the Runcorn canal entrance is also closed. Sailing ships have long gone.

As regards the ground level, you will need the latest OS Maps to get the detail you require or the latest admiralty charts as this has changed over the years due to silting, reclamation, construction and redevelopment etc.

 

[MikePJ]

I have the relevant Admiralty chart - can look it up when I get home if you would like?

I can confirm that none of the side locks on the Manchester Ship Canal are operational.

 

[furnessvale]

I would be amazed at the foresight in doing that. Given the railway bridge was completed in 1868 and construction of the ship canal only started in 1887.

Whoops! Mind you, our Victorian forefathers were renown for their foresight!

 

[MikePJ]

Here's the relevant bit of the chart. The air draft ("headroom") is shown as 24.25m over the ship canal water level.

The OS map shows the land rising rapidly from a 5m contour on the southern bank of the canal to around 20m at the summit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snowball]

Some contours around the south abutment are visible in this listed building summary. However, for that to be much help you'd also need to know the height of the bridge above ordnance datum.

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1130418

 

[KevinTurvey]

If this is any help also Bing maps allow you to access the full OS explorer map range, if you click on this option and zoom right in - the 30m contour line "appears" to pass through Runcorn station.

I think this is a great tool and while not as up to date as google images, its free and these maps now cost what, £9 a pop.

 

[snowball]

Also available on streetmap.co.uk.

 

[shakey1961]

Thanks for all your help. I shall go and check it all out

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Bridge clearance is min 75ft above spring tide to meet admiralty requirements for Masted vessels working on the river at that time. However due to silting there is very little traffic nowday's of any kind going up river, if I recall correctly the Runcorn canal entrance is also closed. Sailing ships have long gone.

If all the old clearance requirements have gone, are the new road bridges significantly lower than the "Ethelfleda"?
The old road bridge doesn't seem to be a lot different.

 

[snowball]

Probably the headroom requirements for the ship canal were selected to match the existing headroom of the railway bridge, and then the 1905 transporter bridge, the 1961 Silver Jubilee Bridge and the new bridge were all designed to match the headroom requirements of the Ship Canal.

 

[8A Rail]

Probably the headroom requirements for the ship canal were selected to match the existing headroom of the railway bridge, and then the 1905 transporter bridge, the 1961 Silver Jubilee Bridge and the new bridge were all designed to match the headroom requirements of the Ship Canal.

For added info - the New Gateway bridge is higher at the Runcorn side of the bridge than the Widnes side for that reason - MSC.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

For added info - the New Gateway bridge is higher at the Runcorn side of the bridge than the Widnes side for that reason - MSC.

It is of course the reason the M6 viaduct at Thelwall is as high as it is.
Though the canal carries only a fraction of the traffic it did when the M6 was built.

 

[markindurham]

Apropos of nothing, operation of ocean going ships along the Canal may be of interest. There is a layby berth just after you enter the Canal system at Eastham Locks. Traditional ships like Clan Line & Ellermans' general cargo ships would lower their derricks and tops of masts there, and double check draughts and the important 'air draught' before proceeding up the canal. The first time I did it, we had 3 inches of clearance between the top of the funnel and the underside of Runcorn Bridge. I thought this was 'tight', but I was assured by a couple of the 'old hands' that occasionally there would be less than an inch of clearance...

 

[Wavertreelad]

Apropos of nothing, operation of ocean going ships along the Canal may be of interest. There is a layby berth just after you enter the Canal system at Eastham Locks. Traditional ships like Clan Line & Ellermans' general cargo ships would lower their derricks and tops of masts there, and double check draughts and the important 'air draught' before proceeding up the canal. The first time I did it, we had 3 inches of clearance between the top of the funnel and the underside of Runcorn Bridge. I thought this was 'tight', but I was assured by a couple of the 'old hands' that occasionally there would be less than an inch of clearance...

Some would also have their funnels removed before transiting up the ship canal, whilst Clan Line, Strick Line, and Ellerman Lines all had specially built vessels with low superstructures and funnels to avoid the need for the removals. Manchester Liners did the same and all their vessels were built with low super structures, even when some were later converted to containerships.

http://iancoombe.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mcity.jpg

The two purpose built Manchester Liners containerships built in 1968 also had low superstructures were probably the largest vessels to regularly use the canal but at about 500 teu their days were numbered.

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/512026/title/manchester-challenge/cat/524

Within about 10 years Manchester Liners had placed orders for 900teu vessels that were too big for the canal. Today the largest container vessels using the canal are about 350 teu.

 

[markindurham]

When you think about it, the MSC and its operation was one hell of a piece of engineering - ditto the ships that used it. I suppose the nearest equivalent these days is the barges that roam the rivers and canals of Europe. Many of them have masts and wheelhouses that lower at the touch of a button to allow them to pass under low bridges.

 

[Wavertreelad]

When you think about it, the MSC and its operation was one hell of a piece of engineering - ditto the ships that used it. I suppose the nearest equivalent these days is the barges that roam the rivers and canals of Europe. Many of them have masts and wheelhouses that lower at the touch of a button to allow them to pass under low bridges.

And of course it supported it's own huge rail network.