The LNER Encyclopedia

The National Library of Scotland has made their collection of photos of the remains of the Tay Bridge and the wrecked train available here:
http://digital.nls.uk/pageturner.cfm?id=74585060

Some fascinating stuff including very good pictures of the loco and its tender.

A good find, it is remarkable that the engine was repaired and sent to the Border Counties Line as the jocks all thought it was cursed.

Yes, fascinating pictures. I've never seen most of them before. That bridge was one of those structures that somehow just didn't look right. Having said that, Bouch's Belah viaduct on the Stainmore line looked spindly too but it lasted into the 1960s. Can someone explain, why was the Belah called a viaduct but the much longer Tay Bridge was just a bridge?

Does anyone know the purpose of the two white circles on the buffer beam of the loco and tender?

Flamingo wrote:Yes, fascinating pictures. I've never seen most of them before. That bridge was one of those structures that somehow just didn't look right. Having said that, Bouch's Belah viaduct on the Stainmore line looked spindly too but it lasted into the 1960s. Can someone explain, why was the Belah called a viaduct but the much longer Tay Bridge was just a bridge?

maybee Bella spanned the valley and the other crossed the estuary ? Also some years ago when divers salvaged some iron work from the bridge, Eddinburgh university carried out tests and Bouch was not to blame it was inferior cast iron ? (dare'nt say it came from Teesside).

mr B

Thought it was cast in Wormit.

the bolts holding the cast iron legs together [flange to flange ]an awfull lot of the bolts had just sheared leaving the flanges intact ,the bolts on the feet must have been up to the stress as the columns had lift in some cases a substantial amount of stonework.i also noticed that all the coaching stock wheelsets had bent axles i wondered wether the coaches had been bouncing around inside the tall girders for some distance before bringing the bridge down.
i been led to understand that when the bridge was rebuilt the undamaged spans were reused in new one and are still there to this day

Surely not third rail you can still see the remains of the first bridge when you cross the new one.

yes the undamaged spans were moved over onto the new lower columns as the picture from this open university article shows
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/ouconte ... tion=1.6.1

this article makes a very interesting read

mr B wrote: Also some years ago when divers salvaged some iron work from the bridge, Eddinburgh university carried out tests and Bouch was not to blame it was inferior cast iron ? (dare'nt say it came from Teesside).

mr B

The casting was done at a foundry that was set up on the side of the river at Wormit. The quality of the casting was terrible, and blow holes and cracks were routinely camoflaged with a mixture of beeswax, resin, lamp black and iron filings that was known as "Beaumont's Egg" (from the french: beau montage meaning "look good"). If Bouch was to blame, it was that he did not oversee the work adequately, but it could be argued that it was not his job to do so. The main reason that the bridge collapsed was that it was unable to withstand the terrific wind pressure that it was exposed to, partly because it was a science that was largely unknown at the time but mainly because the castings failed due to the poor workmanship.
The Belah Viaduct stood the test of time, lasting almost 100 years before being demolished, but it was always considered weak, had weight restrictions and double heading was banned. His other major bridge in the north of England was Hownes Gill (masonry) on the Stanhope and Tyne, and it was decided to strengthen it after the Tay disaster although there was not any evidence that it was actually weak.

Re the bridge v viaduct designation being related to the river/estuary location, there doesn't seem to be much consistency about that.

Brunel's bridge over the Tamar betwen Devon and Cornwall seems to be referred to as either Saltash Viaduct or the Royal Albert Bridge, so both names are used there.

The line between Arnside and Grange over Sands in NW England crosses an estuary by what is known as Arnside viaduct, I've never seen it called Arnside bridge.

Any more examples?

Any wordsmiths among us should be able to decipher the original latin as aqua-duct has a rough direct translation as water-way shouldnt via-duct mean road-way and be used along side the bridge terminology rather than having a specific meaning.
I wish Mr Grieve English Master at the Dukes School, Alnwick, Northumberland was a member of this forum he would be able to give chapter and verse on the origin and use of the terminology.

From the Oxford English Dictionary, "An elevated structure consisting of a series of arches or spans by means of which a railway or road is carried over a valley, road, river or marshy low -lying ground."

52A wrote:From the Oxford English Dictionary, "An elevated structure consisting of a series of arches or spans by means of which a railway or road is carried over a valley, road, river or marshy low -lying ground."

So its a bit like a bridge then....

Yes, just like the Royal Border Viaduct!