• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Victorian Arch Bridges

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,817
Location
Epsom
Is there anyone on here who is familiar with the actual structure of Victorian arch bridges please?

Specifically - ones which have huge timber joists about 18 inches square installed as braces underneath the road surface below them.

Yes, I know, it's a very niche subject...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,735
Location
London
Is there anyone on here who is familiar with the actual structure of Victorian arch bridges please?

Specifically - ones which have huge timber joists about 18 inches square installed as braces underneath the road surface below them.

Yes, I know, it's a very niche subject...

Very...
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,066
Location
St Albans
I can't be specific about bridges, but the incorporation of timber in brick construction seems to have been around pre-Victorian period. My local church, built 1825, lost some square metres of plaster off the inside of a 3ft thick brick wall. (Due to faulty guttering allowing water to soak into the wall.) Clearing the loose plaster revealed a 6inch by 6inch timber beam in the wall a couple of feet below ceiling level whose existence was unknown. The church architect was not surprised when the plaster came off and revealed this timber - he said it was a common C19th practice.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,735
Location
London
The 1860s-ish building I work in had its frontage taken apart to do some upgrading a few years back. We were surprised to find that a massive beam across the frontage at the level between the ground and first floors - which was holding up much of the place - wasn't as some of us had assumed a girder but a massive wooden beam.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,132
The 1860s-ish building I work in had its frontage taken apart to do some upgrading a few years back. We were surprised to find that a massive beam across the frontage at the level between the ground and first floors - which was holding up much of the place - wasn't as some of us had assumed a girder but a massive wooden beam.
presumably originally a doorway, subsequently blocked up
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,132
Is there anyone on here who is familiar with the actual structure of Victorian arch bridges please?

Specifically - ones which have huge timber joists about 18 inches square installed as braces underneath the road surface below them.

Yes, I know, it's a very niche subject...


Whats the question you actually want to ask?
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,735
Location
London
presumably originally a doorway, subsequently blocked up

No - it ran across the width of the building above a shop-front, supporting or helping to support the wall above which formed the front of the building of several floors. I think it now has girders reinforcing it...
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,132
No - it ran across the width of the building above a shop-front, supporting or helping to support the wall above which formed the front of the building of several floors. I think it now has girders reinforcing it...

so presumably at some point there was a shop window there and the beam acted as a lintel taking the weight off the window frames.
Normal construction method. Nowadays you'd use a concrete or steel lintel. As long as the wood stayed dry it wouldn't rot. Reason why wooden lintels like that often seem bigger than they need to be is to resist woodworm.......the bigger the beam the longer it'll take to get eaten by the dreaded Deathwatch beetle
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
Is there anyone on here who is familiar with the actual structure of Victorian arch bridges please?

Specifically - ones which have huge timber joists about 18 inches square installed as braces underneath the road surface below them.

Yes, I know, it's a very niche subject...
I've never come across any reference to this, but my guess would be stabilising the abutments (keeping them apart) like the invert of a tunnel. The thrust of an embankment towards the roadway must be significant and it's possible they weren't certain of the foundations' ability to resist?
Especially in the light of embankment construction then, fill was just tipped with no reinforcing or compaction or even horizontal layers, as BR and some heritage lines have found out to their cost.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,735
Location
London
so presumably at some point there was a shop window there and the beam acted as a lintel taking the weight off the window frames.
Normal construction method. Nowadays you'd use a concrete or steel lintel. As long as the wood stayed dry it wouldn't rot. Reason why wooden lintels like that often seem bigger than they need to be is to resist woodworm.......the bigger the beam the longer it'll take to get eaten by the dreaded Deathwatch beetle

Yes (and there still is a shop window!). When it was opened up, some of the wood wasn't in a very good state at all after about 150 years [like some London Underground infrastructure...], hence the reinforcement.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,817
Location
Epsom
I've never come across any reference to this, but my guess would be stabilising the abutments (keeping them apart) like the invert of a tunnel. The thrust of an embankment towards the roadway must be significant and it's possible they weren't certain of the foundations' ability to resist?
Especially in the light of embankment construction then, fill was just tipped with no reinforcing or compaction or even horizontal layers, as BR and some heritage lines have found out to their cost.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Whats the question you actually want to ask?

Pretty much what Andrew above has answered - I didn't have time to post more fully earlier because I was at work.

Do you have a photo of one? Or know of a location?

Yes, but no picture of the joists themselves. I'll edit this post in a moment to add it all in.


Edit: It'll be in a new post; this reply isn't letting me edit screenshots in!
 
Last edited:

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,132
I can't be specific about bridges, but the incorporation of timber in brick construction seems to have been around pre-Victorian period. My local church, built 1825, lost some square metres of plaster off the inside of a 3ft thick brick wall. (Due to faulty guttering allowing water to soak into the wall.) Clearing the loose plaster revealed a 6inch by 6inch timber beam in the wall a couple of feet below ceiling level whose existence was unknown. The church architect was not surprised when the plaster came off and revealed this timber - he said it was a common C19th practice.

had the ceiling or roof been raised at some point?
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,817
Location
Epsom
It's this one in Epsom.

During excavations for gas works last month, one such joist was exposed, roughly a foot below the surface, and more or less where the white van is. It's roughly 18 inches by 18 inches square in section, so a really enormous beam and it appeared to be perpendicular to the wall on the left of the picture, but with no obvious way of reaching the wall on the right - it was aiming roughly at the middle of where the billboard is. Based on the position relative to the bridge itself, I would expect there to be four in total although only this one was exposed.

The interesting thing is that the gas men had to abandon their plans to re-lay the main along this road "because of engineering difficulties encountered", which I suspect - and which they haven't denied - was due to the state of the joist. ( NB Network Rail are aware of it so there is no need for anyone reading this to alert them. )

It appears that, obviously many years ago, another utility - not the gas - seems to have considered it a good idea to cut out a large section of the joist, about 90% of it in fact, to pass some pipes through below it. At that section, almost two feet long, only the top two or three inches or so thickness of the joist remains! As the pipes would have been run level, it's a fair bet that any other joists at this bridge - likely four in total - will have been similarly damaged, so probably very wise that the gas aborted their works pending further examination of the structure rather than expose the lot of them.

My obvious question is, will this damage to the joists be likely to result in some extensive and disruptive remedial works at some point? On the one hand the joists have obviously been in this state for many years already and the bridge has clearly been fine, but on the other hand with such damage having come to light, presumably it cannot be ignored, particularly since the gas main in the road in question will have to be replaced which would mean extensive excavation along the road there.

upload_2019-9-4_22-59-7.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-9-4_22-56-58.png
    upload_2019-9-4_22-56-58.png
    656.5 KB · Views: 26

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,114
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
Interesting. Is this Hook Road, Epsom? I wondered if this was part of an old structure and had a look at old maps but this bridge and its abutments don't seem to have changed since they were built. The area close to the bridge was marked as gravel and brick pits before being built up and I wonder if the railway builders had problems with the stability of the wing wall foundations. The timber baulks could have been put in (seems like a bodge to me) to keep the walls apart at the bottom. The wing wall on the right of your picture is immediately behind the hoarding, I think, so may well be the target of the baulk you saw. Are there baulks under the arch as well?

As regards future works - you need a civil engineer to comment on that, but if the theory is right, it would depend on whether the ground is stable enough for the arch and wing walls to stay up without any effective resistance from the baulks. On the basis of playing it safe, I would expect an extended road closure, lot of careful digging and a lot of mass concrete at some time in the future.
 
Last edited:

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,066
Location
St Albans
had the ceiling or roof been raised at some point?
No. Church walls are "as built" in 1825. There was a second smaller beam lower down the wall just below the windows; despite the soaked brickwork there was little sign of decay in the timber. Took 18 months for the wall to dry out. (The ladies of the church then donated their hair to mix in with the replacement plaster to reinforce it!)
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
As regards future works - you need a civil engineer to comment on that, but if the theory is right, it would depend on whether the ground is stable enough for the arch and wing walls to stay up without any effective resistance from the baulks. On the basis of playing it safe, I would expect an extended road closure, lot of careful digging and a lot of mass concrete at some time in the future.
or a row of piles with a reinforced beam connecting them, all beneath road level along each abutment wall...
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,114
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
No. Church walls are "as built" in 1825. There was a second smaller beam lower down the wall just below the windows; despite the soaked brickwork there was little sign of decay in the timber. Took 18 months for the wall to dry out. (The ladies of the church then donated their hair to mix in with the replacement plaster to reinforce it!)

I wonder if the beam is elm - lasts for hundreds of years in wet conditions. When we lived in Surrey many years ago a Roman ford on Stane Street was excavated near us - it turned out to have been a bridge and the bottom parts of the elm piles were still in good condition after getting on for 2000 years.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,817
Location
Epsom
Interesting. Is this Hook Road, Epsom? I wondered if this was part of an old structure and had a look at old maps but this bridge and its abutments don't seem to have changed since they were built. The area close to the bridge was marked as gravel and brick pits before being built up and I wonder if the railway builders had problems with the stability of the wing wall foundations. The timber baulks could have been put in (seems like a bodge to me) to keep the walls apart at the bottom. The wing wall on the right of your picture is immediately behind the hoarding, I think, so may well be the target of the baulk you saw. Are there baulks under the arch as well?

As regards future works - you need a civil engineer to comment on that, but if the theory is right, it would depend on whether the ground is stable enough for the arch and wing walls to stay up without any effective resistance from the baulks. On the basis of playing it safe, I would expect an extended road closure, lot of careful digging and a lot of mass concrete at some time in the future.

Yes, it's Hook Road.

There is no wall behind that hoarding on the right; the line is at an angle there so it's effectively a skew bridge. The right hand side wall, as we look at it in that screenshot, is on the other side of the bridge.

Based on what you say, my guess is the gas people will have to co-ordinate with Network Rail and replace the main at the same time as the bridge foundations are sorted out?

Hmmm... you suggest stability issues... about 18 months ago Network Rail had to spend several weeks stabilising the embankment on the left of the screenshot as it had started slipping.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,884
Location
Nottingham
There's probably a risk of the whole thing collapsing and possibly taking the railway withi it, if they start digging at the toe of the retaining wall to insert some more foundations. I'm not an expert but maybe the answer is to put in a row of sheet piles as close to the wall as they can, to prevent the earth moving outwards when the road is excavated. Or some much longer piles behind the wall, effectively replacing it. Sounds like a long road closure...
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,817
Location
Epsom
The wing wall on the right of your picture is immediately behind the hoarding, I think, so may well be the target of the baulk you saw.

Here's a closer look at it; the wing comes down to approximately where the watermarked "Google" is in this image; the baulk / joist / whatever it's called was aiming towards where the black car is.


upload_2019-9-5_13-51-57.png
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,216
I wonder if the beam is elm - lasts for hundreds of years in wet conditions. When we lived in Surrey many years ago a Roman ford on Stane Street was excavated near us - it turned out to have been a bridge and the bottom parts of the elm piles were still in good condition after getting on for 2000 years.
Wood lasts almost indefinitely if permanently saturated and so anaerobic - bog oak, ancient trackways etc. It also lasts if dry, unless attacked by woodworm or the like. It rots if intermittently wet.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
Here's a closer look at it; the wing comes down to approximately where the watermarked "Google" is in this image; the baulk / joist / whatever it's called was aiming towards where the black car is.


View attachment 68204
I had a closer at both sides using streetview and there has clearly been a lot of work done on that bridge: The wing wall has a buttress in your picture - not something normally built in from new. The brickwork of the bridge above the arch has been tied through to substantial channel girders on both faces... and I suspect the "corrugated iron" under the arch is probably a lot thicker than the stuff needed just for channelling water penetration as it looks like it is sitting on/linked in to a substantial girder at the base of the arch.
This all indicates a lot of movement (or fears that it was about to go) so packing the abutments apart and even the wing walls wouldn't be so surprising.
(the black car does seem to be a long way from the bridge though!)
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,817
Location
Epsom
Yes, but the black car is still well within the limits of the wall on the other side, thanks to the skew design. There has been a lot of work on the bridge, yes, although I suspect quite a lot of that is because it gets repeatedly struck by lorries and buses. Incidentally, the Sixt place is no longer there - instead there is a massive flats development which goes almost all the way up to the embankment limits - so we've now got a huge additional loading on the ground on one side of the line.

I wonder if it might be better, possibly even faster and cheaper, to replace it with a flat deck bridge set further back on each side on new foundations? That would also eliminate what is a bit of a bottleneck* in a very busy road and allow a pavement to be put in place on the up side.

*Cars can pass without restriction, but with all lorries and any double deck buses having to use the middle of the road, traffic flow is hindered a lot of the time.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,817
Location
Epsom
No, as far as I know the nearest stream is 500 metres or so to the north, and runs parallel to rather than towards the line. On Google maps it can be seen alongside Longmead Road and it is culverted under Pound Lane towards Court recreation Ground.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,096
There has been a lot of work on the bridge, yes, although I suspect quite a lot of that is because it gets repeatedly struck by lorries and buses.
I think it's unlikely that bridge bashes would do enough damage to require that much strengthening. Far more likely that the surrounding sand and gravels mean the foundations were inadequate from the beginning.
I wonder if it might be better, possibly even faster and cheaper, to replace it with a flat deck bridge set further back on each side on new foundations?
Almost certainly, but first someone has to find the money and then bite the bullet of doing the job, with all the rail and even more road disruption it would bring. Presumably it's not currently seen as a particularly high priority.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,390
I think it's unlikely that bridge bashes would do enough damage to require that much strengthening. Far more likely that the surrounding sand and gravels mean the foundations were inadequate from the beginning.
Almost certainly, but first someone has to find the money and then bite the bullet of doing the job, with all the rail and even more road disruption it would bring. Presumably it's not currently seen as a particularly high priority.
One imagines after the Gas digging finds that NR will be writing to the water /sewage company involved in chopping the beams...
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,817
Location
Epsom
One imagines after the Gas digging finds that NR will be writing to the water /sewage company involved in chopping the beams...

I saw the damage with my own eyes and it looked like it was many, many, years old. It's certainly not recent. Could be 50 years old or more... No idea what pipes they were, but they were about 6 - 8 inches in diameter. Two pipes, side by side. And I think a wider one a foot or so below them - I should have taken a photo shouldn't I...?


Almost certainly, but first someone has to find the money and then bite the bullet of doing the job, with all the rail and even more road disruption it would bring. Presumably it's not currently seen as a particularly high priority.

I would think from the sheer number of utilities present and the restrictive size of the bridge that it would be quicker, cheaper and less disruptive overall to just replace it compared to trying to rebuild or strengthen the foundations of the existing one.


_______________________________________________________________

I had a close look this morning; the advertising hoarding has been moved to the left and the new flats being built go right up to the edge of where the retaining wall reaches the ground...!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top