Following the 1877 widening, no further changes were made to the Hanwell skew bridge for around twenty-five years. There is a surviving plan of the 1847 rebuild in the Network Rail archive which is covered in stress and weight calculations in red ink, dated April 1896. This suggests a careful review of the weight-bearing abilities of the bridge carried out in that year. As the technology of steam power had developed from the early days of the railways, locomotives had become steadily more powerful, faster, and inevitably heavier. The 2-2-2 Firefly class from the 1840s weighed 24 tons; from around 1847 there were a number of locomotives of the 4-2-2 Iron Duke class weighing 41 tons. By 1906, the 4-6-0 4000 Star Class locomotive plus tender weighed 116 tons fully loaded with coal and water. The steady increase in the weight of locomotives through the second half of the nineteenth century would have prompted the reassessment of the strengths of many of the bridges on the network including the one at Hanwell. Nothing was done for a few years, but in March 1903 the GWR contracted with Head, Wrightson and Co of Stockton on Tees for the ‘Supply and Erection of Steelwork for Bridges at Hanwell’. ‘Bridges’, because there were three of them, including a steel truss to replace Brunel’s box girder bridge of 1847 and a new single line goods crossing. It seems that the railway company was determined at all costs to preserve four operating tracks, two main line, and two ‘relief’ or goods lines, during the reconstruction work. When the crossing was doubled in width from two to four tracks in 1876, a small extra island of embankment—mainly brick—was erected at the north-west corner of the crossroads and this, together with one cast iron column, acted as the central support for the two spans of the new bridge. Now, this island was to be extended to the north and west, the embankments and their abutments adjacent to the existing bridge were widened, and a single line of rail was to be supported on yet two more spans. This was the ‘1903 ... third widening ... to accommodate a goods relief line’ which had been mentioned in the 1906 article in the GWR magazine. From the contract: The new single line bridges over Greenford Lane [Windmill Lane north of the bridge, renamed] and Uxbridge Road forming the widening must first be erected; after both are completed the Company [GWR] will lay their permanent way and commence running traffic over the widening. The reason why this extra line was needed is unclear and was not clarified in the contract. The Wharncliffe Viaduct was not widened, so the fifth line could extend only for a few hundred yards towards the east where it stopped just before the viaduct, although points connected it to the adjacent ‘up’ goods line. To the west, the line proceeded towards Southall where it become lost in a tangle of sidings. So what was its purpose? It could not increase the overall railway capacity because that was limited to the four line width of the Wharncliffe Viaduct. Was it built for heavy goods traffic deemed too near the design limit for the latticework wrought iron bridge, or was it just insurance in case the main line (Brunel) bridge rebuild ran into technical difficulties or took too long? The likely reason for the extra span and the complex and piecemeal way of building the main span (see below), was that the company wanted to keep as many lines as possible open at all times over the Hanwell bridge in order to avoid undue disruption to the railway timetable. At the turn of the century the Great Western Railway was the largest railway company in the country with over 2,500 miles of track. Paddington was the London terminus and trains from Paddington had to traverse the Hanwell bridge. Any restriction at the crossing would severely affect both passenger and goods traffic. With the completion of the new single track bridge, there would be five lines crossing Uxbridge Road. One of the main line tracks would be occupied by the building of the new bridge as detailed below, and the adjacent ‘relief’ or goods line would be in fairly regular use ferrying steel parts for the bridge. This would work well for the north-west side on the ‘up’ main line, but for the other side, the side nearest Hanwell, the adjacent line was the up main line. The contract did allow in exceptional circumstances for the main line to be used to transport parts, at which point all passenger and goods traffic would have to use the relief lines and new single line. The new single line consisted of two spans. Crossing Windmill Lane—now named ‘Greenford Road’ or ‘Lane’ on that side—was a short bridge using riveted steel I-beams. The main span crossing the Uxbridge Road was an open structure of the type known as a ‘Pratt Truss’. A drawing from the contract plans shows an orthographic view of the two spans as seen from the north. The Greenford Hotel—now McDonald’s—and trees on the embankment now mask views of the shorter bridge. (There is a rumour, possibly an urban myth, concerning the Greenford Hotel which was one of two hotels built in the area in 1920s/30s. The Greenford Hotel was by the Hanwell bridge on Greenford Road (but some distance from Greenford). A second hotel was built just under two miles further north on the junction between Greenford Road and the Western Avenue in Greenford. The second hotel, a long way from any bridge, was called ‘The Bridge Hotel’. The story goes that the same entrepreneur built both hotels, but someone on their staff confused the two—they were both on Greenford Road—and managed to switch the names. When the mistake was discovered it was too late to rectify it.) A local newspaper story on 27 June 1903 about the flooding of the River Brent mentioned the ‘stream little short of a torrent’ in proximity to the ‘new railway bridge’. This suggests that by that date, three months after the start of the contract, the work on new single track bridge was either complete or substantially so, and this is consistent with the GWR magazine article. (It must have been a prodigious flood considering the elevation of the bridge.) After this for some reason the contract did not proceed as originally written; the final replacement of Brunel’s wrought iron structure did not happen for another three years. The original work-package started in March 1903 with a ten month completion period, so something substantial must have happened to delay the process. The formal go-ahead to Head and Wrightson to commence the work was dated 12 March 1903 and this was acknowledged two days later. The tender was for the sum of £6,482 12s, to be completed within ten months from ‘the date of the order to commence’. A bond of £1,200 provided by ‘two good and satisfactory Sureties’ ensured the ‘due fulfilment of the contract’. A default penalty of more than 18% of the contract value is not surprising given the cost to the railway company of their bridge being partially unavailable for longer than planned. The contractor had to pay the company £50 for every week that the work overran the contracted completion time. It is difficult to see how technical or engineering problems could have delayed the work for so long, and if there were any contractual issues they were settled out of court. The most likely reason for the delay was for ‘convenience’ on the part of the GWR. Perusal of Volume 2 of E T MacDermot’s History of the Great Western Railway does offer some clues. It seems that at the turn of the century some of the inhabitants of Bristol were dissatisfied with the existing railway service and became interested in constructing a rival railway. A Bill came before Parliament in May 1903. It may be that the prospect of competition spooked the GWR board into beefing up their existing timetable, and the last thing they needed would be to have all passenger trains having to slow to walking pace a few miles from Paddington in order to cross a bridge under reconstruction. In the event Parliament threw out the Bill for the new railway in June, due in some measure to the fact that the ‘alleged enthusiasm of Bristol ... has not been crystallised into cash support’. The GWR board must have breathed a collective sigh of relief, but it was no time for complacency. In June 1904, with perhaps an implied ‘nose-thumbing’ at Bristol, the company initiated an ‘express in each direction between London and Plymouth without a stop’. The 246 miles were covered in four hours twenty-five minutes, this being the longest non-stop service in the world. Was it the search for that record that delayed the bridge rebuilding? Two years later, the main contract work finally commenced. It consisted of the replacement of Brunel’s 1847 bridge, with a single steel gantry also to the design of a Pratt Truss. What is curious about this part of the contract is that the fabrication method laid down for the new span seems to be unnecessarily complex and longwinded, and quite likely to lead to error and the need for rework and delay. Reduced to its essentials, one half of the bridge, starting with the ‘up’ line, was to be made available to the contractor. The company (GWR) would remove the rails, ballast, and asphalt, and the contractor, having built a fence between the up and down lines, would proceed to build just half of the bridge on that side resting on Brunel’s bridge, with the two ends of the main girder sitting on temporary elevated supports. While this was going on, trains would continue to use the down line, rumbling past on the other side of the fence. When complete, the company would lay rails over the new half of the bridge and run trains over it. Now the down line would have its rails etc. removed, and the contractor would construct the other half of the new bridge. When this was finished the company would relinquish the up line, the two halves of the bridge would be united, Brunel’s bridge would finally be demolished, and the new bridge would be lowered hydraulically, two inches at a time, to its final position. The plan makes it clear that the rails on the relief, or goods line—the 1867 trellis bridge—were higher than the main line; this was because the bridge had to clear Brunel's 1847 bridge girders. The added gradient was less of a problem for the slower goods trains, and in any case the locomotives were far more powerful by 1867 than in the early days of the railway. One further difficulty was pointed out to the contractor: Attention is called ... to the Electric Tramway with overhead conductor crossed by and adjacent to the works ... So the contractor had to build one half of the bridge, including a forty-five ton, fifteen foot high girder, in an area just half of the width of the bridge with trains thundering past on the other side of a wooden fence. Furthermore, any false move during the demolition of the (metal) Brunel bridge or the lowering of the new steel span, would bring the workmen in contact with several hundred volts and shut down the London United Tramways—and possibly the workmen also ... On 14 April 1906, shortly after the two halves of the bridge had been united, and as the old Brunel structure was finally being demolished, the work was photographed from the ground and the railway tracks. The photograph from the ground is taken from Windmill Lane looking north under the bridge towards Greenford. The new steel truss is virtually finished with the end supported on what appears to be a stack of temporary spacers over the cast iron rocker bearing (top left). Much of Brunel’s 1847 bridge can still be seen, including the remaining folly on the extreme right. Above the column immediately to the right of the horse and cart there appears to be evidence of corrosion on the girder. The electric tram ran along the Uxbridge Road under the bridge from 1901 and two of the standards or poles supporting the overhead wires can be seen just to the left of the horse and cart; it is just possible to see the wires themselves under the bridge. Ten years later, a view of the completed bridge from approximately the same viewpoint, complete with tram. Called in the text 'A Little Known Brunel Masterpiece", this view confirms that as late as 1916, the Windmill Lane part of the bridge was still open. By comparing the tops of the telegraph pole and tram power standard with the bridge deck, it can be seen that the bridge is lower than in the earlier photograph. It was lowered hydraulically by around two feet after the Brunel bridge was finally demolished. The view from the bridge, looking towards Hanwell and Paddington, shows the end of the other girder supported on spacers. This photograph is notable also for showing part of the 1876 wrought iron trellis bridge; the trellis bridge girders are much shallower than those of the steel bridges demonstrating why it is virtually impossible to see it except from directly underneath. The local press had ignored the 1876 rebuild even though it had entirely changed the view of the bridge from the Uxbridge side. It did so again in 1903 when that view changed again with the building of the single line bridge. From that time the trellis bridge virtually disappeared from view, sandwiched between the two outer spans. Again in 1906, with the final removal of Brunel’s bridge, the local press ignored the event despite the fact that, once more, the view was completely changed. The alteration did not, however, go entirely unnoticed. One rather unlikely group of enthusiasts went to press with a story and photograph commemorating the event. The July 1906 edition of Cycling, published a photograph taken from Uxbridge Road on the Hanwell side, together with a half-page story. The correspondent signed himself ‘R. W.’, and wrote: There has passed away during the last few weeks a very interesting structure and notable feature of the Oxford Road. Most London riders will be familiar with the spot beyond Hanwell where the Great Western Railway goes over the cross roads, and will probably recall the peculiar bridge with its 16 piers and maze of cross girders which made the corners so awkward to negotiate ... It is evident from the partially dismantled state of Brunel’s bridge, that the photograph was taken around the same time as the two views reproduced above. Tantalizingly, the large notice on Brunel’s folly is unreadable. It would be fascinating to be able to read what it said... The Hanwell skew bridge complex was now complete and in the form we see today; the layout is shown in the annotated map: The next photograph shows the bridge in its final iteration from the Hanwell side, with trams, circa 1912. The history of Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s skew bridge at Hanwell, its modifications, and its neighbours and successors is all still there in plain sight for anyone who is interested to look, as the last picture amply demonstrates. Peter Maggs
February 2024 Acknowledgements The paper by Brindle and Tucker, I K Brunel’s First Cast Iron Bridges and the Uxbridge Road Fiasco, Trans. Newcomen Soc., 78 (2008) 25-45, is a highly detailed and informative piece of work with a comprehensive set of references without which the present work would not have been possible. John Page, Records Controller at the Network Rail National Records Group, has provided some wonderful high-resolution scans of drawings of the various iterations of the Hanwell Bridge; those used are with the Kind Permission of Network Rail. The two photographs of the bridge taken on 14 April 1906 are © Historic England. The picture of the completed bridge, circa 1912, is from Ealing Public Library. Thanks are also due to Carole Boniface for trawling Ealing Library for suitable photographs, and for material assistance in measuring up the one remaining octagonal cast iron column at the bridge.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWelcome to the Mirli Books blog written by Peter Maggs Archives
March 2024
Categories |