What are the strange structures in this photo?

[richardsun]

Good link AndrewE. It's interesting to look at the site on Google Maps, shows just how narrow the row of houses were which were knocked down. Railway bridge still there at the LH side. https://goo.gl/maps/1p6z7gZsWwp

This pretty much tells the story of why they were demolished https://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/streets-change-forever-as-homes-tumble-down-1-1978419

The row of houses would have been directly opposite the signal box - maybe they complained about the signaller peering into their windows!

 

[eastdyke]

I guess the windows will generally be in roughly similar places due to the matching room layouts inside the houses, although they don't seem to match completely along the row. I found an example of a similar row with randomly added windows... https://goo.gl/maps/FKCTkZ9hmbS2
We don't know that the railway owned the land behind the houses where the posts/screens stand. The scenario I'm imagining is more a petty neighborhood squabble where the owner of the land isn't particularly bothered about the land being overlooked, but is trying to make a point about the legality of the windows, and perhaps extort a few quid in the process! The houses without the screens perhaps paid the ransom.

I think that we might be getting there.
Perhaps not so much of a 'petty neighborhood squabble' but a deliberate attempt by the owner of the undeveloped land to prevent the existing houses acquiring a 'right to light' that would be prejudicial to his/her interests. I believe that a period of 20 years was relevant to the establishment of a 'right to light'. Look up 'ancient lights law'. Eg:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ancient-lights

 

[AndrewE]

I think that we might be getting there.
Perhaps not so much of a 'petty neighborhood squabble' but a deliberate attempt by the owner of the undeveloped land to prevent the existing houses acquiring a 'right to light' that would be prejudicial to his/her interests. I believe that a period of 20 years was relevant to the establishment of a 'right to light'. Look up 'ancient lights law'. Eg:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ancient-lights

But we can see how little of the light those screens would have stopped - only a bit of the view horizontally eastwards. The sun is actually shining in through the quite small windows in the picture. Anyway, I think the undeveloped triangle is probably railway land: as has been pointed out there is a pigeon loft on it and I think there is a crude staircase (made of something like railway sleepers?) up to the wall, so you could get in by putting a ladder up against the wall in the lane. There are also allotments or veg beds visible behind the signal box on the other side of the line in the first picture on the disused stations webpage.

 

[eastdyke]

But we can see how little of the light those screens would have stopped - only a bit of the view horizontally eastwards. The sun is actually shining in through the quite small windows in the picture. Anyway, I think the undeveloped triangle is probably railway land: as has been pointed out there is a pigeon loft on it and I think there is a crude staircase (made of something like railway sleepers?) up to the wall, so you could get in by putting a ladder up against the wall in the lane. There are also allotments or veg beds visible behind the signal box on the other side of the line in the first picture on the disused stations webpage.

I think that the constructions would have constituted denial of a prospective prescriptive 'right to light' for the windows affected.
Even if the undeveloped land was 'railway land' would there still not be an interest in denying a future 'right to light'?

 

[AndrewE]

I think the railways were focussed on earning money by hauling traffic rather than property speculation in those days. The directors enriched themselves along the way, of course, like the LNWR man who supplied the company with ballast from Penmaenmawr quarry that he owned, and I think one of the early CMEEs made his railway use his own patented continuous brake (or communication cord system.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

They'd certainly be substandard by today's standards. Most of the surrounding streets were either back-to-backs or through-by-lights like these.

What are through-by-lights?

Back-to-backs you still get, of course, they just now get known as "cluster homes" to make them sound a bit better.

 

[SquireBev]

What are through-by-lights?

Half a back-to-back. Door at the front but only windows at the back.

It may be a Yorkshire term, maybe even just West Yorkshire.

 

[Elecman]

I think the railways were focussed on earning money by hauling traffic rather than property speculation in those days. The directors enriched themselves along the way, of course, like the LNWR man who supplied the company with ballast from Penmaenmawr quarry that he owned, and I think one of the early CMEEs made his railway use his own patented continuous brake (or communication cord system.)

Mr Webb you mean

 

[AlterEgo]

Been looking at this for about 20 minutes now.

I think it’s unlikely it was some sort of advertising. This would be quite bizarre, to erect a sign in front of someone’s window, that only they could see.

I think it’s unlikely to be a land dispute. The land is undeveloped and seems to be some sort of common area. Later it became allotments. There seems to be common access via some steps and there are also what other posts have suggested (and I agree) are pigeon lofts.

I think it’s unlikely to be a guard against pigeons. Seems rather odd and far fetched. Also the pigeons can still get to the window.

I think it’s extemely unlikely to be a guard against the sun. The shades are tiny and the sun moves. Also, those windows faced due east, and would only shade the window for a very short period during the early morning.

I think the most likely explanation is a shade against a fixed light source. The nuisance appears to be very local as only a few properties in a small stretch of that road appear affected. It is difficult to see where that light might come from, but it would appear to be in the vicinity of the water tower (just drawing imaginary straight lines between the windows there and seeing if the shades would cover the water tower). The water tower may have had a floodlight on it. The shades are well constructed and I think they were probably put there by the railway at the request of some residents who complained.

 

[peri]

If it was a shade against a fixed light source it would be more efficient to put hinged shutters over the windows IMHO.

 

[AndrewE]

Except that the source of the nuisance (we assume the railway) would have had no right to fix anything to the houses owned by anyone else (who probably weren't the occupants anyway.) Also it would have introduced things with moving parts that needed maintaining on someone else's property.

 

[Bevan Price]

The windows closest to the railway are probably to illuminate staircases, rather than actual living areas.
At that time, almost everybody would have basic linen net curtains to cover the windows of living areas - the more affluent also having heavier. lightproof curtains to use at night.

I suspect that some of the "unidentified objects" are wooden notice boards, fixed to posts, some possibly being "do not trespass" notices to discourage people from entering the land between the railway and the narrow path behind the houses. I wonder if there are any earlier maps showing if there had once been other buildings between the railway and the houses?

 

[SquireBev]

I wonder if there are any earlier maps showing if there had once been other buildings between the railway and the houses?

Well, this is the earliest OS map available, from around 1890.

And this is a later edition roughly contemporary with the photo:

Empty land in both cases, but given that the street itself was only half-built in 1890, I doubt there was ever a time when there were buildings between the houses and the railway.

I think the fixed light source suggestion is probably the most plausible, but I very much doubt we'll ever know for certain.

 

[AndrewE]

The windows closest to the railway are probably to illuminate staircases, rather than actual living areas.
At that time, almost everybody would have basic linen net curtains to cover the windows of living areas - the more affluent also having heavier. lightproof curtains to use at night.

I suspect that some of the "unidentified objects" are wooden notice boards, fixed to posts, some possibly being "do not trespass" notices to discourage people from entering the land between the railway and the narrow path behind the houses. I wonder if there are any earlier maps showing if there had once been other buildings between the railway and the houses?

Please tell me you are joking, or this is a wind-up? The small houses I have known that date back that far have had a steep staircase up between the two rooms on each floor: are you suggesting a spiral staircase up inside the back of the house or something? Most of us are concluding that some people have demanded a screen to shield themselves from a bright light causing a nuisance at night. I believe that "at that time, almost everybody" had very little money to spend on anything other than food and rent, especially if you could only afford rooms in a small house backing on to the railway.
and as for "wooden notice boards, fixed to posts, some possibly being "do not trespass" notices to discourage people from entering the land" I am amazed that it might have been worth anyone's while putting up notices on substantial high posts in front of specific windows! Perhaps "Stop spitting out of this window?"

I think the fixed light source suggestion is probably the most plausible, but I very much doubt we'll ever know for certain.

Agreed!

 

[Bevan Price]

Please tell me you are joking, or this is a wind-up? The small houses I have known that date back that far have had a steep staircase up between the two rooms on each floor: are you suggesting a spiral staircase up inside the back of the house or something? Most of us are concluding that some people have demanded a screen to shield themselves from a bright light causing a nuisance at night. I believe that "at that time, almost everybody" had very little money to spend on anything other than food and rent, especially if you could only afford rooms in a small house backing on to the railway.
and as for "wooden notice boards, fixed to posts, some possibly being "do not trespass" notices to discourage people from entering the land" I am amazed that it might have been worth anyone's while putting up notices on substantial high posts in front of specific windows! Perhaps "Stop spitting out of this window?"


Agreed!

If you look closely, the several of the "things" that appear to be in front of windows are actually shadows from posts further away from the houses. There are rectanular plates - possibly wood or metal - attached to what look like wooden posts several feet high - and typical of the type of notice that were used to provide information or warnings.

I am not suggesting spiral staircases - just two separate staircases, one from ground level to first floor, the other either up to a second floor, or alternatively down to a cellar. Terraced houses with cellars were not uncommon - often used for storing coal, etc.

And even if they were poor, people had pride and modesty, and even if the material was cheap, secondhand and/or flimsy, having net curtains was important to many people. My late mother & aunts grew up in that era, and although neither wealthy nor totally impoverished, every window would have net curtains.

If there were complaints about lights or noise from the railway, the solution would have been a high fence or other devices on railway property - if they could persuade the railway to do anything. There is no way that a typical property owner / landlord in those days would have spent their own money. The usual response would have been "tough - get used to it".

 

[6Gman]

I think that we might be getting there.
Perhaps not so much of a 'petty neighborhood squabble' but a deliberate attempt by the owner of the undeveloped land to prevent the existing houses acquiring a 'right to light' that would be prejudicial to his/her interests. I believe that a period of 20 years was relevant to the establishment of a 'right to light'. Look up 'ancient lights law'. Eg:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ancient-lights

This seems the most plausible explanation. Landowner sees windows being opened on neighbouring property and anticipates future problems. Goes to property owner(s) and says: "Either sign this paper permitting future development on my land or I'm putting up screening which will block your light". Or something similar.

 

[AndrewE]

This seems the most plausible explanation. Landowner sees windows being opened on neighbouring property and anticipates future problems. Goes to property owner(s) and says: "Either sign this paper permitting future development on my land or I'm putting up screening which will block your light". Or something similar.

I think that is being unnecessarily devious/suspicious. As I said upthread, the railways (who I think owned the land) were too busy running trains.
What is strange is that there is no sign of any outside toilets, whereas two of the the roads the other side of the railway have "buildings" (i.e. a front extension) between the houses and the streets both sides of the back-to-backs ...

 

[eastdyke]

I think that is being unnecessarily devious/suspicious. As I said upthread, the railways (who I think owned the land) were too busy running trains.
What is strange is that there is no sign of any outside toilets, whereas two of the the roads the other side of the railway have "buildings" (i.e. a front extension) between the houses and the streets both sides of the back-to-backs ...

I am intrigued as to what evidence you have that the land was owned by 'the railway'?
The line opened in 1890 but passenger services lasted until only 1917. The 1931 picture in the OP shows goods traffic, which continued to 1960.
The subsequent re-development of the railway areas (as shown in the 1931 picture) to form Kingston Close and Kingston Court did not take in the section of land that we are debating. If it had been railway land it surely would have done?
More maps, pictures and historical notes of the railway can be seen on the Disused Stations website here:
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/halifax_st_pauls/index.shtml

 

[AndrewE]

I am intrigued as to what evidence you have that the land was owned by 'the railway'?
The subsequent re-development of the railway areas (as shown in the 1931 picture) to form Kingston Close and Kingston Court did not take in the section of land that we are debating. If it had been railway land it surely would have done?
More maps, pictures and historical notes of the railway can be seen on the Disused Stations website here:
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/halifax_st_pauls/index.shtml

Thanks for reminding us of the link to the webpage I highlighted in post 29! It's one of the things that I have been looking at all through this discussion. From the different maps there it seems to me that by far the most likely scenario is that "the railway" (The "Halifax High Level line" of the Halifax High Level & North & South Junction Railway, if you insist) bought a roughly oblong block of land between Vickerman St and Queen St and maybe then sold on the bit they didn't need for Kingston St. The rest of the surplus bits were too small or irregular in shape to be worth selling on, hence the undeveloped triangles at the 2 north corners.
I don't see Kingston Close and Kingston Court, but surmise that Kingston St was sold on immediately for development as it was both wide enough and (more likely) too high above the track to be useful for railway activities. Even the later industrial estate confined itself to the easily-developed trackbed and ignored the higher land at the sides.

 

[takno]

I think that is being unnecessarily devious/suspicious. As I said upthread, the railways (who I think owned the land) were too busy running trains.
What is strange is that there is no sign of any outside toilets, whereas two of the the roads the other side of the railway have "buildings" (i.e. a front extension) between the houses and the streets both sides of the back-to-backs ...

If you look at the other side of the street in the photo they have yards with facilities, so I assume the houses we are seeing the backs of have a similar yard at the front. They just haven't seen fit to put them on the map, presumably because people were able to sniff them out on their own.

 

[eastdyke]

Thanks for reminding us of the link to the webpage I highlighted in post 29!
.........
I don't see Kingston Close and Kingston Court, but surmise that Kingston St was sold on immediately for development as it was both wide enough and (more likely) too high above the track to be useful for railway activities.

@AndrewE
Oooops my apologies, I had completely missed your link in post 29. A visit to specsavers beckons.
Kingston Close and Kingston Court are the roads named in the development of the housing in the trackbed areas in the 60's/70's after full closure.

 

[SquireBev]

A 1967 OS map shows the track still in place, but by the 1973 edition it's all gone and the north end of the track alignment replaced by Kingston Close. On this map the wedge of land that the poles are on is marked as allotments.

It's a long shot, but I wonder if a letter to the Halifax Courier might flush out any older residents who may remember the area...

 

[Trackman]

It's a long shot, but I wonder if a letter to the Halifax Courier might flush out any older residents who may remember the area...

spot on, I bet they'll print the pic in the paper, someone will the know the story behind them.
Everyone will be intrigued by it, like ourselves!

 

[Cowley]

Great idea.

 

[SquireBev]

I've emailed local historian Chris Helme to see if he can shed any light (hoho) on the subject

 

[SquireBev]

Unfortunately he hasn't been able to provide a definitive answer, but he has suggested that perhaps they went some way to deflecting the noise of passing trains.

 

[Cowley]

Unfortunately he hasn't been able to provide a definitive answer, but he has suggested that perhaps they went some way to deflecting the noise of passing trains.

I don’t think we’ve had that suggestion yet?
Another one for the list (plausible too).

 

[randyrippley]

The complete photo that this was cut from, plus several others is here: https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/search?keywords=halifax&country=global&year=all
taken in 1931

Looking at this again, I think we've misinterpreted these. If you look closely, they appear to be massively built, with a flat face and supporting buttresses to the rear: they are designed to be load bearing. Two are in the track, not the field. I believe they are either supports for an unstable building, or possibly more likely they are supports for concrete shuttering. Their either new and awaiting use, or more likely have served their purpose and just been dumped on spare ground

these are the key photos

https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW036856
https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW036855
https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW036854
https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW036853
https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW036852
https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW036850
https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/EPW036851

 

[SquireBev]

I don’t think we’ve had that suggestion yet?
Another one for the list (plausible too).

Indeed. It got me thinking about drifting smoke as well - perhaps they'd deflect that too?

 

[AndrewE]

I don’t think we’ve had that suggestion yet?
Another one for the list (plausible too).

Unfortunately (from my work) it's not plausible at all. Sound deflects / diffracts around barriers, light doesn't bend significantly in public health or nuisance terms. I reckon the light screens are definitely the most likely answer.