BCN Walkover bridge - a naive question?

[Tony K]

The particular bridge in question is Fishley Roving Bridge on the Wyrley & Essington. Dare say there are probably others......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve always wondered why the brickwork of the inner and outer walls of the bridge differed – the ‘inner wall’ brickwork ‘goes to ground’, whilst the outer wall ends ‘raised’. I’m sure there must be some logical reason that eludes me – and that it wasn’t purely for aesthetic reasons?

[AndrewIC]

A vertical end to the inner wall might snag a tow rope?

[RLWP]

A vertical end to the inner wall might snag a tow rope?

 

Exactly. The towing line had to go up and over the bridge

 

Richard

[Derek R.]

Just so. It's a 'turnover' bridge taking the towpath from one side to another. Often there was iron work placed that also helped prevent towing lines from snagging. On some sharp bends on the BCN, vertical rollers were fitted on the inside of bends for the same reasons. Most are gone by now, though there might be some somewhere.

[Tony K]

Cheers guys - told you it was a naive question - I should have 'sussed' that.

 

 

Another observation that puzzles me - on the 'southern' side of this bridge there's remains of additional brickwork on both banks - at one time would the bridge have been wider or was an original bridge demo and rebuilt - or would that brickwork have served another purpose?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

[RLWP]

Give us a clue, I can't find it by that name. Where is it?

 

I'll check it out in the Blue Book

 

Richard

Edited May 17, 2013 by RLWP

[john6767]

Give us a clue, I can't find it by that name. Where is it?

 

I'll check it out in the Blue Book

 

Richard

Fishley Junction Bridge near Pelsall, where the Lord Hay's Branch joined, thanks to Canal Plan. Only mention in the book is the fact that it is a "girder type" bridge typical of those found in the area due to colliery subsidence. So perhaps there was an earlier bridge there?

[RLWP]

The map in the Blue Book shows a couple of dotted lines suggesting there used to be a bridge alongside

 

Richard

Edited May 17, 2013 by RLWP

[David Mack]

Cheers guys - told you it was a naive question - I should have 'sussed' that.

 

Its not a naive question - it was a very sensible one to ask. Its just a pity that some of those responsible for the maintenance of such structures, or the design of new structures along the canal don't ask themselves the same question. Here for example is the towpath on the approach to Shrewley Tunnel. Try bow hauling a boat along there!

 

[IanM]

Its not a naive question - it was a very sensible one to ask. Its just a pity that some of those responsible for the maintenance of such structures, or the design of new structures along the canal don't ask themselves the same question. Here for example is the towpath on the approach to Shrewley Tunnel. Try bow hauling a boat along there!

 

 

To be honest the amount of times a boat needs to be bow hauled along there put against the amount of times someone may walk off the edge in the dark does mean the bow hauling bit loses.

[David Mack]

To be honest the amount of times a boat needs to be bow hauled along there put against the amount of times someone may walk off the edge in the dark does mean the bow hauling bit loses.

 

You've misunderstood my point. I don't have any problem with putting railings along that edge. What I object to is the upstand above the handrail level at every post. I seem to recall that before this faux-victorian-bollard style railing was erected some years ago, there used to be a wooden barrier along here, which had the top rail fixed to the top of the posts, and with thin sheet metal nailed over the joints, to provide a continuous flat top surface with nothing for a tow rope to catch on.

[IanM]

You've misunderstood my point. I don't have any problem with putting railings along that edge. What I object to is the upstand above the handrail level at every post. I seem to recall that before this faux-victorian-bollard style railing was erected some years ago, there used to be a wooden barrier along here, which had the top rail fixed to the top of the posts, and with thin sheet metal nailed over the joints, to provide a continuous flat top surface with nothing for a tow rope to catch on.

 

Ah, my mistake.

 

I did think of another example similar to yours but actually looking at them these would be better...

 

 

Stonehouse Bridge - Stroudwater Navigation by imulford, on Flickr

However where they are sited is a bit of a pain!

Edited May 17, 2013 by IanM

[Derek R.]

HNBC published a booklet entitled 'Our Disappearing Heritage' a few years back showing all too often new infrastructure that impairs and impedes, often in the name of 'safety'. Yet such structures - especially new railings - can add to danger in boarding and alighting from craft.

[magpie patrick]

In fairness, Stonehouse bridge is a new bridge for the Ebley Bypass and was built when the canal was derelict. It isn't a heritage structure and when built no one would have been getting on and off there.

 

For the OP, the abandoned structures are very much like bridge abutments but this raises more questions. Were there two bridges? Did the present bridge replace an earlier structure? was the present structure once bigger with a wider deck?

[magnetman]

HNBC published a booklet entitled 'Our Disappearing Heritage' a few years back showing all too often new infrastructure that impairs and impedes, often in the name of 'safety'. Yet such structures - especially new railings - can add to danger in boarding and alighting from craft.

I get the impression that health and safety around canal structures is to look after those who are not boating. this is fair enough. boaters will tend to know how the canal works (lol) but random daytrippers won't.

 

the perfect example of this is Stoke Bruerne top lock. the footbridge is irritating if you pull the boat in by hand or want to step off with a rope but a load of clueless tourists crossing the gates would be worse

[Laurence Hogg]

Cheers guys - told you it was a naive question - I should have 'sussed' that.

 

 

Another observation that puzzles me - on the 'southern' side of this bridge there's remains of additional brickwork on both banks - at one time would the bridge have been wider or was an original bridge demo and rebuilt - or would that brickwork have served another purpose?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

 

This bridge was rebuilt, it is shown on the 1884 1 2500 and the 1904 OS maps as a different structure, the latter showing the long ramps.

[Tony K]

Cheers Laurence - just checked the OS maps out and yes can see the 'added' ramps. Strange they appear to have left 'elements' of the old structure standing............?

[winja]

Does any one remember the old man that lived next to the towpath oposite Rough Wood ? , there used to be a collection of old tin sheds etc

[stort_mark]

On the same subject(ish), one thing that always gets me is when the powers-that-be tart up a bit of the canal and put in red building bricks on the towpath. These shatter, crack and generally deterioratewithin months, if not weeks. So instead of seeing decaying heritage, you see decaying crap. Except the decaying crap has probably cost the taxpayer a bundle and is totally inappropriate. You see it all over the BCN. <rant over>

Edited June 26, 2013 by stort_mark

[matty40s]

the old bridge looks like the brickwork is moving up for an arch(especially the offside brickwork), the new bridge is functional /flat and has a metal plinth which will better withstand subsidence and movement.

[RLWP]

the old bridge looks like the brickwork is moving up for an arch(especially the offside brickwork), the new bridge is functional /flat and has a metal plinth which will better withstand subsidence and movement.

 

That makes sense Matty, like the bridges on the Daw End. When they sank too low, they would jack the deck up and brick up the gap

 

Richard