Who Built This Bridge - Opinions Please

[Andy873]

For many years I've been trying to find out which contractor built a specific road bridge...

Scenario:

Two acts of Parliament are passed to allow a new branch line to be built, technically two lines that join up to form this new line.

Act 1 runs from a new junction with the main line eastwards and terminates in or near a field marked as field No. 5 on the plans on the west side if a turnpike road. It's built by contractor No. 1.

Act 2 runs from a new junction with the same main line westwards and joins up with line 1 also on the west side of this turnpike road and is built by contractor No. 2.

Now I've always been in the dark as to which contractor actually built this new road bridge over the new line, but the way the acts are worded suggests it's contractor No. 2, however, the last couple of weeks I've come across some of the original contract drawings for the first act (built by contractor No. 1) which show the plans for this bridge, so it looks like it was actually contractor 1 who built the bridge.

Would act 1 allow you to continue further than it is specified? - if it said "terminates on the east side of the road" then that would be simple.

Opinion please, which contractor do you think built this road bridge?

 

[PG]

This feels like a question on The Krypton Factor...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

For many years I've been trying to find out which contractor built a specific road bridge...

Scenario:

Two acts of Parliament are passed to allow a new branch line to be built, technically two lines that join up to form this new line.

Act 1 runs from a new junction with the main line eastwards and terminates in or near a field marked as field No. 5 on the plans on the west side if a turnpike road. It's built by contractor No. 1.

Act 2 runs from a new junction with the same main line westwards and joins up with line 1 also on the west side of this turnpike road and is built by contractor No. 2.

Now I've always been in the dark as to which contractor actually built this new road bridge over the new line, but the way the acts are worded suggests it's contractor No. 2, however, the last couple of weeks I've come across some of the original contract drawings for the first act (built by contractor No. 1) which show the plans for this bridge, so it looks like it was actually contractor 1 who built the bridge.

Would act 1 allow you to continue further than it is specified? - if it said "terminates on the east side of the road" then that would be simple.

Opinion please, which contractor do you think built this road bridge?

I am puzzled by how a line can be built eastwards from a junction on the main line and another line can be built westwards from the same main line and they both meet in one place where this turnpike road is?

Am I correct in deducing it's a circular line and that one of the branches curves back to cross the main line at some point before they both meet on the west of the road?

Assuming the meeting point is on the westward side of the turnpike road, the wording above suggest contractor 1 would be the logical one.

We really need to see a map of the main line, the branches and the turnpike road to fully understand this.

This feels like a question on The Krypton Factor...

Agreed!!!

 

[swt_passenger]

Have you access to the British Newspaper Archive? The local paper might be online. (Apologies if I’m stating the obvious!)

 

[30907]

I am puzzled by how a line can be built eastwards from a junction on the main line and another line can be built westwards from the same main line and they both meet in one place where this turnpike road is?

Am I correct in deducing it's a circular line and that one of the branches curves back to cross the main line at some point before they both meet on the west of the road?

Assuming the meeting point is on the westward side of the turnpike road, the wording above suggest contractor 1 would be the logical one.

We really need to see a map of the main line, the branches and the turnpike road to fully understand this.

The line concerned is the Great Harwood or North Lancs Loop, from Great Harwood Jn (Blackburn, East of Daisyfield Jn) to Rose Grove. Members of a certain vintage will know of Padiham Power Station and its coal traffic

@Andy873 can confirm whether the turnpike is the present A678 from Padiham to Blackburn or the A680 Accrington to Clitheroe.

 

[Taunton]

Acts of Parliament do not stipulate who the construction contractor is. That is determined by the owner later when they are ready to start work. The contractor is also not normally the engineer who did the design of the line

 

[Andy873]

This feels like a question on The Krypton Factor...

Doesn't it just!

@Andy873 can confirm whether the turnpike is the present A678 from Padiham to Blackburn or the A680 Accrington to Clitheroe.

It's the A678 road, the other one is a much more recent road.

The line concerned is the Great Harwood or North Lancs Loop, from Great Harwood Jn (Blackburn, East of Daisyfield Jn) to Rose Grove. Members of a certain vintage will know of Padiham Power Station and its coal traffic

Yes, that's right, but I was trying to keep this a more general question - one that would probably apply to most new lines.

Assuming the meeting point is on the westward side of the turnpike road, the wording above suggest contractor 1 would be the logical one.

Acts of Parliament do not stipulate who the construction contractor is. That is determined by the owner later when they are ready to start work. The contractor is also not normally the engineer who did the design of the line

Good points, I'm sure it was contractor 1 who built the bridge now.

The problem with a line that takes two acts to complete a line plus two contractors is the meeting point of both of the works. You might know where they both met up, but when it comes to one side of a bridge, it immediately throws up the question - who built the bridge.

Under these circumstances and the obvious question, you do get frustrated when you read (as far as I am aware) the only book dedicated to a line which omits to answer such an obvious question.

Have you access to the British Newspaper Archive? The local paper might be online. (Apologies if I’m stating the obvious!)

Yes I have and decided to go back and re-read the articles regarding Major General Hutchinson's (chief railway inspector at the time) inspections...

His first inspection was for the section Rose Grove - Padiham, the interesting thing is the las point of inspection was the three arch viaduct (going east) just after the station there at Padiham, and not the bridge in question. The bridge I mention was inspected during his second visit so possibly confirms it was contractor 1's remit to build it?

I'm going for contractor 1, but really wish that the one and only book about the line had mentioned it - frustrating when that happens isn't it?

 

[Rescars]

Sadly not every meeting of lines warranted a Golden Spike event like that at Promontory Point, Utah!

 

[Pigeon]

Yes, that's right, but I was trying to keep this a more general question - one that would probably apply to most new lines.

I don't think it can be; I think it depends too much on the niggly details of the history of the inception of the line in question. It was pretty obvious which line you were talking about, but I don't have your detailed knowledge of it. My thought was that there ought to be some clues in the intricate details of how what ended up as "the Padiham loop" came to be, in terms of its Parliamentary authorisation, two lines built to meet in the middle, and of how having got that authorisation the work was then split up between the different contractors; as Taunton says the Acts specify the routes that are to be built (in terms like "railway no. 1 from a junction with the main line 1m3ch north of Somewhereston station to the middle of Farmer Giles's field in the parish of St Stephenson; railway no. 2 from a junction with railway no. 1 in the middle of Farmer Giles's field in the parish of St Stephenson to the Yellow Triangle cement works in the parish of St Wilbur-juxta-Charlotte", etc), but do not specify who is to build which parts of which routes: that is up to the railway company and the contractors themselves, and it's not entirely unusual for it to get jiggled about and changed as the construction progresses (or doesn't), with bits and pieces being reallocated from contractor 1 to contractor 2 or even to a new contractor altogether if contractor 1 is being slow, and other alterations of related kinds. It could well be possible to dig up these details in theory, but it might require making an actual visit to Kew or some other archive collection since the relevant words may not appear in books or on the internet.

 

[Nottingham59]

which contractor actually built this new road bridge over the new line, but the way the acts are worded

I wouldn't put too much reliance on what it says in the Acts. When they were surveying the line for East-West Rail, they found several places where the line had actually been built outside the limits that had been specified in the Acts that enabled them. What the Act says and what actually gets built can vary.

From a cursory glance at Google Street view, I see two very distinct patterns of stonework in those bridge abutments that still exist on the line.

1. The bridge abutments at Station Road, Green Lane and Simonstone Lane are laid in regular tiers, with stone blocks all the same height in each row. (As shown in this image from Streetview)
   
   
   
2. At Dryden Street, Park Road, B6535 Harwood Road, the stonework is much less regular, with large blocks interspersed with much smaller blocks to fill the gaps between them, with no longitudinal tiers.
   

This is the pattern in stone walls on the approach ramps to the A678 Blackburn Road bridge, which is the bridge in question. (Can't see the abutments, and the central span is now metal which I assume is not original)


I reckon this is type 2, so probably built by the same contractor. Or at least from the same quarry as the other type 2 bridges above.

Interestingly, the piers on the Marholme Viaduct are clearly Type 2, but the parapet wall along the viaduct has regular tiers like type 1.

I note this might not answer your question, because the different types of bridges are mixed along the line, with some of each type appearing in each section of the line. I bet the railway just divvied up the work between the contractors/sub-contractors/stonemason gangs/navvies on an ad hoc basis as the line was built.

 

[Andy873]

I don't think it can be; I think it depends too much on the niggly details of the history of the inception of the line in question. It was pretty obvious which line you were talking about, but I don't have your detailed knowledge of it. My thought was that there ought to be some clues in the intricate details of how what ended up as "the Padiham loop" came to be, in terms of its Parliamentary authorisation, two lines built to meet in the middle, and of how having got that authorisation the work was then split up between the different contractors; as Taunton says the Acts specify the routes that are to be built (in terms like "railway no. 1 from a junction with the main line 1m3ch north of Somewhereston station to the middle of Farmer Giles's field in the parish of St Stephenson; railway no. 2 from a junction with railway no. 1 in the middle of Farmer Giles's field in the parish of St Stephenson to the Yellow Triangle cement works in the parish of St Wilbur-juxta-Charlotte", etc), but do not specify who is to build which parts of which routes: that is up to the railway company and the contractors themselves, and it's not entirely unusual for it to get jiggled about and changed as the construction progresses (or doesn't), with bits and pieces being reallocated from contractor 1 to contractor 2 or even to a new contractor altogether if contractor 1 is being slow, and other alterations of related kinds. It could well be possible to dig up these details in theory, but it might require making an actual visit to Kew or some other archive collection since the relevant words may not appear in books or on the internet.

The two acts required to build the line which I have copies of do indeed describe line 1 and line 2, where line 2 is to be a junction with line 1 where the A678 runs over the former line, then a turnpike road. I personally think that, as the plans for this bridge are included in the contract drawings for the Blackburn - Padiham section that it was Mr. Stone, the contractor for that section who built it.

This is the pattern in stone walls on the approach ramps to the A678 Blackburn Road bridge, which is the bridge in question. (Can't see the abutments, and the central span is now metal which I assume is not original)

Fortunately for me, I have the original contract drawing for this bridge, well the iron work at least. I had another look on Flickr by searching "Padiham old railway bridge" and a photo of it from the track bed. When I compare the drawings and the photo it shows that they are the same, so yes, the metal bridge across the line is the original one. If it's not, then the replacement was built to the exact same design.

I reckon this is type 2, so probably built by the same contractor. Or at least from the same quarry as the other type 2 bridges above.

Interestingly, the piers on the Marholme Viaduct are clearly Type 2, but the parapet wall along the viaduct has regular tiers like type 1.

I note this might not answer your question, because the different types of bridges are mixed along the line, with some of each type appearing in each section of the line. I bet the railway just divvied up the work between the contractors/sub-contractors/stonemason gangs/navvies on an ad hoc basis as the line was built.

You know I missed the stone styles, at the time I was looking for any signs of the drain holes shown on the contract drawings for the abutments. It's a very interesting point you make about the two types of styles. I presume the abutments were sub contracted out by the two main contractors for both sections, and it's logical that a sub contractor could be hired by both contractors, as they would want to get as much work as possible.

As for the actual stone itself, my L&Y Society book about the line says that all the stone for the entire line (both sections is how it reads) came from Cunliffe quarry on the outskirts of Blackburn. I've always felt uneasy about that statement for these two main reasons:

1. Everyone on the forum tells me that a contractor building a line would use local materials as much as they could, it cuts down the cost, and it's easier from a logistical point of view.

2. At the time of build, there was a large working quarry in Padiham, which like the one at Cunliffe was a sandstone quarry.

It could be that as Mr. Stone (contractor for the Blackburn - Padiham section) got closer to Padiham he used the Padiham quarry, and I can't see Mr. Gregson (Padiham - Rose Grove section) would want to get stone from a quarry 7 - 8 miles away when there is a quarry on his doorstep?

 

[Nottingham59]

It could be that as Mr. Stone (contractor for the Blackburn - Padiham section) got closer to Padiham he used the Padiham quarry, and I can't see Mr. Gregson (Padiham - Rose Grove section) would want to get stone from a quarry 7 - 8 miles away when there is a quarry on his doorstep?

Well, given the differences in the stonework, I'd guess that the stone came from two distinct quarries. Type 1 is more yellow, and the bedding planes allow more regular size blocks to be cut. Type 2 is more blue in colour and the bedding planes are closer together, so much of the stone comes in the form of thin slabs that have to be stacked together to build up the height.

Given the volume of stone needed for the Calder Bridge and the Marholme viaduct, I can well believe that a single quarry would not be enough.

the metal bridge across the line is the original one

So look for differences in the structure. For instance, on the type 1 bridges at Station Rd and Green Lane the bottom beams on the underside of the bridge run perpendicular to the railway tracks. On the type 2 bridge at Park Road, they run perpendicular to the road.

I can see on Flickr that A678 Blackburn Road clearly has type 2 stonework, but I can't see underneath the span. Looks like it needs a site visit to see how the bottom beams lie. If you do go, have a good look at how the plates are sized and arranged, and at the pattern of rivets used. Any of those could be useful stylistic indicators to compare with other bridges on the line.

 

[stuving]

Here's a couple of points - the first one rather obvious. You can't build an embankment up to the position where it meets a bridge until the bridge has been built. So if that's been chosen as the boundary, it suggests that at that time the "half" including the bridge was to be built first. If, for some reason, the order is reversed, the bridge has to be done as a separate preliminary step. That would presumably be a contract alteration, and the acts could stay the same.

I was also wondering whether the company would have specified the style of masonry, so that would not tell you anything. I looked at the L&Y specification for the Hoddlesden Branch (because I know where that is), and that calls for bridges, retaining walls etc. to be "built with flat bedded rubble stone and the face work neatly snecked" and for "the arches to be of parpoint masonry". Snecked is what is now called random ashlar, or type 2 in post #10 above. Type 1 is coursed ashlar.

The Hoddlesdon document gives a pretty detailed description of how they want ashlar work (in general), coursed wall, parpoint masonry, and rubble masonry, done. Some of the vocabulary may give you headaches, though; e.g. "rough-pitched and drafted, and boasted on the beds and joints" or "notched, sunk, weathered, and throated as required". I suspect the precise meaning of some terms may be restricted in time and place. As for parpoint, I think that means with all stone full depth - i.e. no separate facing or filling; for the arches that does seem to make sense.

 

[Andy873]

Here's a couple of points - the first one rather obvious. You can't build an embankment up to the position where it meets a bridge until the bridge has been built. So if that's been chosen as the boundary, it suggests that at that time the "half" including the bridge was to be built first

It would seem logical to get on with building the bridges before embankments have got that far, the Hoddlesden specification (different line) states that the contractor has to make sure the earth / material for an embankment needs to be packed carefully when working at a bridge site. Where a public road bridge needs to be built such as this one mentioned, the road has to be diverted away from where the bridge is going to be. Once that's done, you can dig a cutting, build the road bridge, and divert the road back to its original route.

The Hoddlesdon document gives a pretty detailed description of how they want ashlar work

I was also wondering whether the company would have specified the style of masonry

If you look in the same location / web page, you'll see quite a few of the contract drawings for the North Lancs loop. The drawings don't seem to show the general stone work design for the bridges apart from the large stones that form the bottom of the arches (if they need arches).

Well, given the differences in the stonework, I'd guess that the stone came from two distinct quarries. Type 1 is more yellow, and the bedding planes allow more regular size blocks to be cut. Type 2 is more blue in colour and the bedding planes are closer together, so much of the stone comes in the form of thin slabs that have to be stacked together to build up the height.

Given the volume of stone needed for the Calder Bridge and the Marholme viaduct, I can well believe that a single quarry would not be enough.

It does as two quarries were used, perhaps even a third one called Lumb quarry / Lumb wood quarry that is right next to the line between Padiham and Rose grove.

As for styles 1 and 2, I've looked once more at the Geograph and Flickr sites for photos of other bridges in the former line, and I can't see any pattern to them. A style 1 bridge could be in between two style 2 bridges and vice versa.

coursed wall, parpoint masonry, and rubble masonry, done. Some of the vocabulary may give you headaches, though; e.g. "rough-pitched and drafted, and boasted on the beds and joints" or "notched, sunk, weathered, and throated as required". I suspect the precise meaning of some terms may be restricted in time and place. As for parpoint, I think that means with all stone full depth - i.e. no separate facing or filling; for the arches that does seem to make sense.

Some of the wording such as the above can be found under the title "Reference" on the contract drawings, and I've had to search for their meanings several times.

In general then, it looks as the stone came from at least two quarries, two distinct types of building work with no distinct distribution patten. It would make sense that stone mason's who might be building say three bridges for contractor 1 would also take on work for contractor 2 after completing the three bridges whilst waiting for contractor 1 to get back to them with more work and vice versa.

There is a Youtube video of one person walking the original route of the loop line, and if you bare with it, you can see a couple of occupation under bridges out in the countryside on farmer's land, 18 minutes to 19 minutes in, plus a bit of Martholme viaduct:

 

[DelW]

So look for differences in the structure. For instance, on the type 1 bridges at Station Rd and Green Lane the bottom beams on the underside of the bridge run perpendicular to the railway tracks. On the type 2 bridge at Park Road, they run perpendicular to the road.

It's possible that the difference is a result of different deck plans. The Station Road and Green Lane bridges just carried two parallel tracks, although at a skew angle. The Park Road bridge is an unusually wide deck, with one parapet at a skew angle and one perpendicular to the road. Looking at NLS maps, this is because Park Road bridge additionally carried a track branching off into the goods yard.

So my suggestion is that Station Road and Green Lane decks might have been "off the shelf" in terms of design even if not actual components; while Park Road would have been bespoke to that location. The extra, and varying, width of the Park Road deck might have suited the close-spaced primary beam layout better, in preference to the through girders and close-spaced secondary beams used at the other two bridges.

(Edited to add screenshot of historic map of the Park Road area):