Electric train staff equipment had been brought into use between Blisworth and Towcester by 9 August 1910 (date of SMJR minute 451 (TNA file RAIL 674/3)) and presumably the new signal box at Blisworth appeared at the same time. In that this was so…Continue
Started by Richard Maund Apr 20.
SMJ board minute 1474 of 13 April 1921 (TNA file RAIL 674/4) approved that “the following expenditure be charged to Capital” for year 1920: “Blisworth: Signalling and alterations to Permanent Way, Improvements and additional signalling: £800”. In…Continue
Started by Richard Maund Apr 20.
Did this railway (as opposed to the East & West Junction Railway) go into receivership - if so, when. And when did it come out of receivership?Continue
Started by Richard Maund. Last reply by Richard Maund Feb 11.
Shall we bring this discussion under the proper heading!So far as the OS plan surveyed 1885, published 1886, is concerned: the OS liked - wherever they could - to have text running parallel to the top and bottom borders. When they came to add the…Continue
Started by Richard Maund. Last reply by Richard Maund Feb 10.
This is bridge 166 on the Hartwell road out of Roade - as suggested by Jim this might be the unidentified pic location - the view is looking down from the bridge towards the camera. In the distance can just be seen the white water tower that still stands next to the WCML at Roade. This bridge has now totally gone, along with most traces of the trackbed.
Tags:
Add a Comment
This started my interest in the SMJ, I live right where this bridge use to be and always wondered what it looked like
I know of bridge 157 between Showsley and Stoke Bruerne and bridge 168 between Hartwell and the M1 are both single arched bridges that could accommodate double track, although some of the underline bridges around Easton Neston are definitely not for double track.
I think that you are right Richard - I've blown up the original shot and you can just about make out the shape. Looking at one or two of the other (single span) bridges on the route, they could also have accommodated double. I wonder why some were built as double arches and others not - must be an obvious answer that I am not thinking of. Perhaps we should also add the 'style ' of each bridge to the bridges list on the website as an historical record - oh dear - another little project!
Looking at it, it's definitely a double arched bridge, if you look closely enough on the right of the visible arch, you can just see the edge of a second arch, and also the bridge parapet continues to the right way beyond the visible arch, long enough to include a second one. And the design is identicle to the Ashton Road bridge, which was built for double track use, making it highly likely that a bridge just 300 yards down the line would also be built for proposed double track, even though double track was never implemented. Richard
Glad to be of help Richard!
Actually. looking at this pic more closelyI now wonder whether this bridge was a single arch type - or was it a twin arch like the one across the Ashton road? The undergrowth here obscures the view, and certainly the trackbed is only single line width, but I wonder whether it was constructed like the other one for possible double track?
Anyone out there know?
Marvellous! I've been wondering about this bridge for a number of years!
© 2024 Created by Andy Thompson. Powered by
You need to be a member of The SMJ Society to add comments!
Join The SMJ Society