Bridge Numbering.

[1H was 2E]

Every 'railwayana' dealer, auction and steam railway shop has stocks of cast iron bridge plates. Even on still-open lines, only those plates in totally inaccessible places remain, the rest apparently stolen and replaced by painted numbers or new Network Rail ones. Obviously there's a great interest in them. BUT..... is there anywhere on the web or in books any information about the systems used to number bridges or lists identifying numbers to locations? I've done a lot of searching without success - can anyone point to a source? The only fact I've learnt (not absolutely sure) is that some companies, including the GER and LSWR, numbered each bridge uniquely, although most had the numbers starting at 1 for each section of line or branch.

[limitofshunt]

Structure numbering covers bridges, culverts, some lineside structures and occasionally buildings. Structures are numbered uniquely on each line, which can lead to some structures carrying two numbers when they carry two lines. Structures built in between existing structures carry the suffixes A, B, etc. As you've stated, modern NR bridge plates identify the structure with its line reference (ELR) - older plates only show the number and there is no way to place them to a particular line.

Was there a particular line or company you had in mind? My interest lies in the NER / LNER lines in the North East, and the NER line diagrams produced by the Engineers' offices contain a list of structures and their numbers as part of the diagrams (correct obviously at the time of production.)

I have not managed to find a comprehensive list of structure numbers other than these - although it is something I'm working on.

If the line(s) you're interested in exist today, drop me a PM and I can can see what I can dig up for you.


Cheers,

Jon

[StevieG]

I'd just add that, in at least some instances (there were/are no doubt exceptions), I believe that where "a line" went through a pre-grouping boundary, or for whatever reason its mileage re-starts from Zero (probably historic; e.g may well have been a now-vanished junction), or both, it often had its bridge numbering re-start from Zero from the boundary or '0' milepost.

[limitofshunt]

I'd just add that, in at least some instances (there were/are no doubt exceptions), I believe that where "a line" went through a pre-grouping boundary, or for whatever reason its mileage re-starts from Zero (probably historic; e.g may well have been a now-vanished junction), or both, it often had its bridge numbering re-start from Zero from the boundary or '0' milepost.

A good example of this is the ECML where there are 7 re-starts between King's Cross and Newcastle due to historic changes.

[R. pike]

Another thing to watch out for are other companies bridges crossing the GN. The Oxford - Cambridge flyover didn't carry a GN number. Another was the underline structure on the Midland line just south of Huntingdon. This was identified as Br56 whilst the structures either side are up somewhere in the 140's

[AndyRush]

Every 'railwayana' dealer, auction and steam railway shop has stocks of cast iron bridge plates. Even on still-open lines, only those plates in totally inaccessible places remain, the rest apparently stolen and replaced by painted numbers or new Network Rail ones. Obviously there's a great interest in them. BUT..... is there anywhere on the web or in books any information about the systems used to number bridges or lists identifying numbers to locations? I've done a lot of searching without success - can anyone point to a source? The only fact I've learnt (not absolutely sure) is that some companies, including the GER and LSWR, numbered each bridge uniquely, although most had the numbers starting at 1 for each section of line or branch.

Let me know what bridge numbers/companies you are interested in (open or closed lines) and I'll try and help.

Andy

[PinzaC55]

I'd just add that, in at least some instances (there were/are no doubt exceptions), I believe that where "a line" went through a pre-grouping boundary, or for whatever reason its mileage re-starts from Zero (probably historic; e.g may well have been a now-vanished junction), or both, it often had its bridge numbering re-start from Zero from the boundary or '0' milepost.

A good example of this is the ECML where there are 7 re-starts between King's Cross and Newcastle due to historic changes.

Interestingly I have heard or read that there was an NER "ZERO" plate at the bufferstops in Kings Cross station.

[1H was 2E]

Thanks for all the info folks. I'll get to my question later, but it strikes me as odd that there is so little published about bridge numbers and numbering. A majority of the population have heard of Mallard and Flying Scotsman, and I bet quite a few could tell you their numbers. Probably even more have heard of the Forth Bridge (as in painting) but could even the most ardent East Coast fan say what number it is???? To get to my question, I have a conundrum. Could apply also to the East Coast but I've encountered it on the London & Birmingham bit of West Coast. The L&B had a distinctive style of oval, unlettered, bridge plates with Georgian lettering. LNWR plates had the company initials. Therefore one might conclude that bridges with L&B plates on existed when the line was built - or at least they are later successors to ones in that position. Very few A- or B-etc suffixed plates existed when I travelled the line daily. However, one might perhaps have expected that there would be the need for additional over or underline structures to be built for the following reasons (i) it was the first line in the area so other lines did not cross it (ii) there were only 3 level crossings until recently (now none); one might have expected there were more, replaced by bridges and (iii) stations such as Bletchley had passenger subways bearing L&B numbers - did they really do subways from the start? They are numbered northwards, and one of my travelling companions noticed that at some point towards Birmingham they changed to LNWR style, suggesting that at some point a tidy mind had decided to renumber to remove all numbers with A etc suffices, but this had been done by removing the un-suffixed plates and repositioning them further southwards in a sequence to avoid suffices. When the highest number available was reached, new ones were cast for the remainder. Seems like job creation but what other explanation is there? I may stand to be corrected on this, but suffices are not as common on old main lines as might be expected. For example, NER plates are quite commonly seen for sale, some with high numbers suggesting the main line, but I've not seen any with letters.

[PinzaC55]

Thanks for all the info folks. I'll get to my question later, but it strikes me as odd that there is so little published about bridge numbers and numbering. A majority of the population have heard of Mallard and Flying Scotsman, and I bet quite a few could tell you their numbers. Probably even more have heard of the Forth Bridge (as in painting) but could even the most ardent East Coast fan say what number it is???? To get to my question, I have a conundrum. Could apply also to the East Coast but I've encountered it on the London & Birmingham bit of West Coast. The L&B had a distinctive style of oval, unlettered, bridge plates with Georgian lettering. LNWR plates had the company initials. Therefore one might conclude that bridges with L&B plates on existed when the line was built - or at least they are later successors to ones in that position. Very few A- or B-etc suffixed plates existed when I travelled the line daily. However, one might perhaps have expected that there would be the need for additional over or underline structures to be built for the following reasons (i) it was the first line in the area so other lines did not cross it (ii) there were only 3 level crossings until recently (now none); one might have expected there were more, replaced by bridges and (iii) stations such as Bletchley had passenger subways bearing L&B numbers - did they really do subways from the start? They are numbered northwards, and one of my travelling companions noticed that at some point towards Birmingham they changed to LNWR style, suggesting that at some point a tidy mind had decided to renumber to remove all numbers with A etc suffices, but this had been done by removing the un-suffixed plates and repositioning them further southwards in a sequence to avoid suffices. When the highest number available was reached, new ones were cast for the remainder. Seems like job creation but what other explanation is there? I may stand to be corrected on this, but suffices are not as common on old main lines as might be expected. For example, NER plates are quite commonly seen for sale, some with high numbers suggesting the main line, but I've not seen any with letters.

Re the L&B plates is it not possible that the LNWR simply placed that heading on the plates as the "common title" for the line? For the instance the "Malton And Driffield Railway" was always know by that name even when owned by the NER, LNER and BR and some of the bridges (still owned by Network Rail) are painted "MAD (number)"!
"For example, NER plates are quite commonly seen for sale, some with high numbers suggesting the main line, but I've not seen any with letters."
If you get a Metro train between North Shields and Tynemouth stations there are a series of "Flying Arches" which have NER plates lettered A-K.

[1H was 2E]

Thanks for the response, but the plates I described as 'L&B' are oval with only the number on. The numbers themselves I described as 'Georgian' because they are curly and ornate in a strangely grotesque way and are rather clumsy unlike the plain and even (in width!) numbers with no serifs used by the L&NW and which are more typically Victorian, and very neat. The LNW plates varied in thickness and in the style of the '&' not to mention flat and round top 3's (long before the EU made us change road signs!) but all were of a recognisable style.

[Bryan]

Bridge numbers with letters as a suffix are not just for added structures.
One example of that being the bridge over the railway at Sherburn in Elmet which replaced the level crossing. This bridge was numbered between the ones either side but with a letter added.
However in the case of existing structures you will find that many culverts under the railway are numbered in the line sequence but are letter suffixed. A good example is the Hull - Seamer line were I have seen suffixes up to K.

It would not be practical to re letter any structures due to removal or addition because the records for the structure going back over the history of the line will all record in sequence by Miles chains and yards each structure. Any relettering will duplicate a record and introduce the possibility of the wrong location being identified.

[PinzaC55]

A particular curiosity was Sherburn North signalbox http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinzac55/3617873144/ which had a "30" bridgeplate - I have since been told there was a culvert running under the box.
In this shot of my railwayana collection in 1980 the large enamel "2" was from the arches at Newcastle Forth Goods - I got them in 1977 but there are still a couple there, heavily rusted.


My Railwayana 1980 by pinzac55, on Flickr

[AndyRush]

In a GENERAL sense, comprehensive bridge numbering as we know it today mostly seems to date from around the time that a lot of railways 're-miled' themselves, i.e between the mid 1890's and around 1906. For example the GN did this in 1895 and the NE in 1905. The GE appears to have been remiled around 1906, but bridge numbers weren't applied until 1911. I have no idea when the GW was remiled (if it was) but they didn't use bridge numbers anyway (nor did the LBSC, as far as I know). Other lines don't seem to have been remiled at all - the L&Y was apparently one of these and large scale plans for this company from the 1880's show bridges already numbered.

There are certainly earlier references to bridge numbers (on the Northern & Eastern and the Eastern Counties Railways, for example) but it doesn't seem that corresponding plates were applied to the actual structures in these cases.

When bridges were numbered, a span of 6ft 0in or over determined whether a structure was a bridge or not, less than 6ft 0in span was considered to be a culvert and not numbered (or numbered in a separate sequence, as on the M&GN). Needless to say there are exceptions to these 'rules'! Most railways had repeating sequences of bridge numbers on different lines; the only one that seems to have had unique numbers was the Great Eastern which came very late to the practice.

So far as I can tell, the use of suffix letters in pre-nationalisation days was confined to additional bridges constructed after general numbering had been carried out, the current practice of giving every culvert a number with a suffix letter or sometimes several letters has only taken effect since late BR days, as evidenced by the Bridge Registers having these structure numbers annotated on to the lists rather than printed as are those for the 6ft 0in plus spans.

Lines that were built on lengthy stretches of brick arches appear to have had arch numbers from the earliest days (ECR, London and Blackwall, London & Greenwich and Newcastle & Berwick being known examples) and these were retained when the later bridge numbering systems came into effect.

The above is not intended to be exhaustive and I would be interested to hear of different practices to those I have described above.

Andy

[Mickey]

Deleted

[PinzaC55]

Interestingly I have heard or read that there was an NER "ZERO" plate at the bufferstops in Kings Cross station.

Yeah that figures, probably the same railway manager who about 5 or 6 years ago asked a bemused railway colleague wot speed can a train go over a bridge that has just recently been struck by a road vehicle?.

The manager continued the answer is ''ZERO mph got it!!.''

The above (ex)railway manager is apparently now driving buses for a living somewhere around London presumedly a bit faster then zero mph?.

Lol I meant in the sense that NER Zero plates were used to denote the "start" of branches and all distances were measured from them. So supposedly the Zero plate at Kings Cross denoted the "start" of the ECML even though the NER didn't own it till Shaftholme Junction.