Cooperation in building a footbridge

[Andy873]

I've recently found out that one of the public foot bridges on my old line was not one supplied by the L&Y although the design possibly suggests it was. In fact, after years of trying to persuade the L&Y to supply one, the Padiham town council advertised for tenders for it to be built in October 1885. The footbridge connected one street to another over the branch line at Pendle Street and was erected in 1886.

Now there are some questions please:

Given that this bridge was not an L&Y one, what influence would the railway company have with regards to the bridge? here I'm looking at gauge clearance, design and safety.

The bridge supporting columns are on railway land, how much cooperation would have been needed between the L&Y and the council to build this bridge?

 

[Morayshire]

In general, as long as the L&Y were not paying for it and it benefited them, I would have thought they would be co-operative.

Some scenarios spring to mind.

1) L&Y would provide minimum requirements which council then designed around
2) L&Y supplied the design (which you suggest might have happened).
3) Off the shelf design which the L&Y civil engineer then approved.

Once you get to construction then L&Y is going to control part if not all of the works as it crosses their railway.

So L&Y and council engineers would then co-operate to get the bridge built.

L&Y may even have been the contractor for all of the works or just part of it. L&Y probably had a steam breakdown crane or similiar which would be available to assist (for a price)...

The exact scope of L&Y involvement may have been detailed in the tender document or it was all worked out on site.

Above is pure conjecture based on a) personal experience and b) too long spent reading the likes of British Railways Illustrated!

 

[Rescars]

I wonder how the responsibilities for ongoing repair and maintenence would have been apportioned - and who would pay for what.

 

[Andy873]

Thanks for the replies.

Once you get to construction then L&Y is going to control part if not all of the works as it crosses their railway.

Yes I agree, this was a very busy line at the time. I know as well as the daily traffic, Saturdays were always the busiest and Sundays the quietest (although there was some traffic on a Sunday). That said, I wonder if work was carried out on Sundays? I don't know just how fast you could erect a footbridge?

L&Y may even have been the contractor for all of the works or just part of it. L&Y probably had a steam breakdown crane or similiar which would be available to assist (for a price)...

It didn't cross my mind that the L&Y might have won the tender themselves. What ever the truth is, it did look like an L&Y style bridge.

I wonder how the responsibilities for ongoing repair and maintenence would have been apportioned - and who would pay for what.

Another good point. If you supply something then surely you have to guarantee your work for a period, perhaps if the L&Y did build it there might have been some sort of maintenance agreement?

It's one thing for a railway company to provide a bridge as required when building a line, quite another if a third party wants one. And talking about maintenance - someone at some point is going to need access onto railway land?

 

[randyrippley]

Who actually made (not erected) the other footbridges on the line? Did the L&Y create the metalwork in their own forges, or was it done by a local engineering company? If the latter it would be no surprise if the same company won the contract for this bridge

 

[Andy873]

Who actually made (not erected) the other footbridges on the line? Did the L&Y create the metalwork in their own forges, or was it done by a local engineering company?

Very good question! There were only two other footbridges along the line, one at Great Harwood station to connect both platforms and one in the countryside near Blackburn - as to who made them - answer unknown.

The only thing I can tell you is going back 20+ years, the majority of the cast iron railway bridges were forged in a local foundry or foundries in Blackburn.

If the latter it would be no surprise if the same company won the contract for this bridge

It wouldn't surprise me, the L&Y spent more money on this line per mile than any other. There were numerous ornate little finishing touches to the station buildings. bridges etc, and I don't think the L&Y would have wanted something not in character with their new line. The ace up their sleeve of course is the fact that the supporting columns need to be on railway land, something to bargain with?

 

[Rescars]

Presumably it is one thing to pay for a bridge, but quite another thing to own it. Did ownership become vested in the railway, or did the Council continue to own it after it had been built? I can see a deal being done along the lines of "if you want this bridge and prepared to pay for it to be built to our specifications, then we'll be happy to adopt it and look after it". All sorts of potential legal complexities here to keep the solicitors and surveyors entertained (and generating fees) for years!

 

[stuving]

There was another footbridge built by a local council in 1886, reported in a depth of detail makes it a good example. This is the bridge in Burnley from Raglan Road to Derby Street, over the L&Y line that's still there. LCC are currently planning to built a new one to replace what I assume is this 1886 one, which was taken down in ca. 2013 as unsafe. it was longer than the one in Padiham - 100' x 6', from an embankment at one end to a stair down to near track level (rebuilt at some stage) at the other.

Earlier reports say that the bridge was surveyed and discussed in January 1886, when "a representation will be made with the railway company". The company supported the proposal, and suggested "an interview". The corporation approved this in March, plans and specifications were drawn up by the borough engineer, for a lattice girder bridge. Borrowing of £800 was arranged ("but it might not all be spent"), the tender advertised in May, and it was finished in November!

I suggest that's a more appropriate comparator for the (yet to be built) one at Theale station than the Empire State Building. And it stood for well over 100 years, too.

Burnley Express and Clitheroe Division Advertiser. 20 November 1886

 

[Andy873]

There was another footbridge built by a local council in 1886, reported in a depth of detail makes it a good example. This is the bridge in Burnley from Raglan Road to Derby Street, over the L&Y line that's still there. LCC are currently planning to built a new one to replace what I assume is this 1886 one, which was taken down in ca. 2013 as unsafe. it was longer than the one in Padiham - 100' x 6', from an embankment at one end to a stair down to near track level (rebuilt at some stage) at the other.

Earlier reports say that the bridge was surveyed and discussed in January 1886, when "a representation will be made with the railway company". The company supported the proposal, and suggested "an interview". The corporation approved this in March, plans and specifications were drawn up by the borough engineer, for a lattice girder bridge. Borrowing of £800 was arranged ("but it might not all be spent"), the tender advertised in May, and it was finished in November!

I suggest that's a more appropriate comparator for the (yet to be built) one

Yes, I think this is an excellent comparison with the one at Padiham. Thanks for taking the time and effort to find that article. It's extremely helpful, in the fact it describes the co-operation between the council and the railway company. it mentions who was attending its construction (including the Mayor) and why Sunday was picked for the work.

The footbridge at Padiham was slightly different in the fact it was all iron, by that I mean the steps either side were iron too. Perhaps the construction here was - fix the main four supporting posts first, then the main girders, finally the steps are added - maybe.

The article about the Burnley footbridge mentions the Mayor, at Great Harwood station there's no mention about the Mayor attending the opening but it does mention
several councillors. This footbridge officially opened Monday 18 November 1901.

The opening day (a Monday) also looks to back up bridge construction on a Sunday or Sundays.

Question:
I presume there would have been some sort of ceremony? red tape and a pair of scissors?

As I've mentioned earlier, the were only three footbridges over this line, one of which remains a complete mystery. It connected a footpath which ran from the Eastern end of Blackburn near a farm to the Leeds & Liverpool canal - you can see it here (but suggest you zoom out to get your bearings):

Georeferenced Maps - Map images - National Library of Scotland

Perhaps this was the oldest of them all? - My reasoning comes from the fact that the line cuts an existing footpath and I've learnt railway companies had to make some sort of crossing (as if the railway line was not there). This last footbridge crosses over Cunliffe railway cutting which was dug out sometime 1870-1875 ish.

If anyone could help with this final footbridge I would be very grateful!!

 

[randyrippley]

As I've mentioned earlier, the were only three footbridges over this line, one of which remains a complete mystery. It connected a footpath which ran from the Eastern end of Blackburn near a farm to the Leeds & Liverpool canal - you can see it here (but suggest you zoom out to get your bearings):

Georeferenced Maps - Map images - National Library of Scotland

Perhaps this was the oldest of them all? - My reasoning comes from the fact that the line cuts an existing footpath and I've learnt railway companies had to make some sort of crossing (as if the railway line was not there). This last footbridge crosses over Cunliffe railway cutting which was dug out sometime 1870-1875 ish.

If anyone could help with this final footbridge I would be very grateful!!

I think you've got a complication there in that I reckon the footpath isn't following it's original route, having been severed and diverted when the canal was built as well as when the railway was built. I'd expect the original path to have crossed field 94, possibly close to the council boundary

 

[stuving]

It turns out the Padiham (Pendle Street) footbridge was opened on 30th March 1896, not 1886 (was that a typo?). The invitation to tender was in the papers in October 18651895, but only in December did the council seal the agreement drawn up by the L&Y, and even then the partition of the cost was not decided!

This may be an explanation for some of the protracted haggling:

Burnley Express 23 March 1895

Where it talks about "doing away with a similar bridge", that sounds like knocking down an existing one. But that makes no sense - why would there be a bridge over a railway that hadn't been built? It must mean that the surveyor identified an accommodation bridge as required on this (implausibly named) owner's land, but the company reached an agreement to pay him to not build one instead. As a result, when asked about a new bridge, and whether they might contribute to the cost, the L&Y said that payment in lieu had to recovered from Sir Ughtred first. This is what happened:

Burnley Gazette 04 April 1896

He was a busy man - in 1886 he had just won the local seat in a general election, and became Under-Secretary of State for India. The family were local, and he lived in Gawthorpe Hall - less than a mile from Padiham - so I'm sure he was used to being expected to stick his hand in his pocket all the time. There are big gaps in the newspaper record I'm finding, though the copies are there in the archive. It's always hard to know why that is, but a lousy OCR text for searching the is usual reason.

 

[randyrippley]

It turns out the Padiham (Pendle Street) footbridge was opened on 30th March 1896, not 1886 (was that a typo?). The invitation to tender was in the papers in October 1865, ............

Is there a typo in there?

 

[stuving]

Is there a typo in there?

At least one, usually.

 

[Andy873]

1896, not 1886 (was that a typo?)

It certainly was!

@stuving - I'm running out of thank you's - the articles are a tremendous find!!

It turns out the Padiham (Pendle Street) footbridge was opened on 30th March 1896

That's great, an official opening date, well done. It's details like this that my only book about the line from 1993 could only guess at, in that book the author could only hint at the fact it could possible be of pre big four grouping, we now know it's much older.

Where it talks about "doing away with a similar bridge", that sounds like knocking down an existing one. But that makes no sense - why would there be a bridge over a railway that hadn't been built? It must mean that the surveyor identified an accommodation bridge as required on this (implausibly named) owner's land, but the company reached an agreement to pay him to not build one instead. As a result, when asked about a new bridge, and whether they might contribute to the cost, the L&Y said that payment in lieu had to recovered from Sir Ughtred first.

I've had a look at the 1846 map and unfortunately the area around Padiham is damaged so I can't locate that other bridge before the railway came. The town, like most other ones in Britain at this time grew at a fast rate, due to land ownership any building had to head South. By the time the line came the town had taken shape around it with the line running right though the town in the centre.

Due to the 1 in 40 bank going to ground level in the town, Pendle St was the only practical place to put such a bridge. One of the main reasons for the footbridge (but not the only one) was to shorten the length of time to walk to the station from the other side of the line.

Sir Ughtred did indeed pay 200 pounds, but if that's going into the railway's pocket that doesn't contribute to the cost of the footbridge - or perhaps it smoothed things over?

One thing I did notice looking through newspaper headlines from circa 1880 to WW1 was just how many fatalities there were - and this was only one branch line. After WW1 things seem to calm down.

Would you agree that the Mayor would come along and officially open it?