Discussion:
Cockfosters depot WW2 pillbox
(too old to reply)
b***@nowhere.co.uk
2019-06-23 12:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?

Anyway here's a google maps link:

https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
Graeme Wall
2019-06-23 14:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
Depends which way round London they were going. One of the problems in
1939-1940 was the British assumption that the Germans would invade East
Anglia as it was good tank country with good beaches for delivery of
troops and materiel, so the original layout of defences was done with
that in mind. The logic of the pill box at Cockfosters was that the
Germans would try to encircle London round the north side. Then it was
realised that the Germans envisaged the invasion as a (wide) river
crossing as they had done successfully in France and Belgium and would
opt for the shortest route via the Dover Straits.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Arthur Figgis
2019-06-23 17:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an
anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Arthur Figgis
2019-06-23 17:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an
anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context?
Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park to
perhaps be linked to activities there?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Graeme Wall
2019-06-23 17:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an
anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context?
Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park to
perhaps be linked to activities there?
Unlikely, the committee that decided where to position such things
wouldn't have known about interrogation sites. An anti-aircraft site to
protect the depot is more likely
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Arthur Figgis
2019-06-23 19:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an
anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context?
Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park
to perhaps be linked to activities there?
Unlikely, the committee that decided where to position such things
wouldn't have known about interrogation sites. An anti-aircraft site to
protect the depot is more likely
Presumably someone would have known it was being used for some kind of
military purpose (if it was at the time).
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Recliner
2019-06-24 12:41:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 20:46:45 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an
anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context?
Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park
to perhaps be linked to activities there?
Unlikely, the committee that decided where to position such things
wouldn't have known about interrogation sites. An anti-aircraft site to
protect the depot is more likely
Presumably someone would have known it was being used for some kind of
military purpose (if it was at the time).
Military sites were hardly uncommon during the War!
Graeme Wall
2019-06-24 12:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 20:46:45 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an
anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context?
Also, is it close enough to the POW interrogation site at Trent Park
to perhaps be linked to activities there?
Unlikely, the committee that decided where to position such things
wouldn't have known about interrogation sites. An anti-aircraft site to
protect the depot is more likely
Presumably someone would have known it was being used for some kind of
military purpose (if it was at the time).
Military sites were hardly uncommon during the War!
in 1940 the whole of the south of England was a military site.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2019-06-25 09:38:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:17:42 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an
anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context?
Certainly some sort of gun emplacement. It is not a pillbox (one
still in existence by the Thames at Gatehampton Bridge attached).
Guy,

This isn't a binary group, so most people won't have seen your bridge photo
attachment, which isn't permitted in text-only groups. You need to provide
a link to the photo hosted on a web site.
Guy Gorton
2019-06-25 14:28:01 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:38:00 GMT, Recliner
Post by Recliner
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:17:42 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an
anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context?
Certainly some sort of gun emplacement. It is not a pillbox (one
still in existence by the Thames at Gatehampton Bridge attached).
Guy,
This isn't a binary group, so most people won't have seen your bridge photo
attachment, which isn't permitted in text-only groups. You need to provide
a link to the photo hosted on a web site.
Silly of me! A moment's inattention. This website shows Gatehampton
pillbox in a much better photo than I could take:-
https://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/military-sites/9148-gatehampton-viaduct-wwii-br-decay.html#.XRIu-LjpUyI

Guy Gorton
Guy Gorton
2019-06-25 15:02:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:28:01 +0100, Guy Gorton
Post by Guy Gorton
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:38:00 GMT, Recliner
Post by Recliner
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:17:42 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
That looks like Type 27, with the hole in the middle for an
anti-aircraft gun. Would that perhaps have been useful in context?
Certainly some sort of gun emplacement. It is not a pillbox (one
still in existence by the Thames at Gatehampton Bridge attached).
Guy,
This isn't a binary group, so most people won't have seen your bridge photo
attachment, which isn't permitted in text-only groups. You need to provide
a link to the photo hosted on a web site.
Silly of me! A moment's inattention. This website shows Gatehampton
pillbox in a much better photo than I could take:-
https://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/military-sites/9148-gatehampton-viaduct-wwii-br-decay.html#.XRIu-LjpUyI
Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.

Guy Gorton
David Cantrell
2019-06-27 10:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
--
David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet

All principles of gravity are negated by fear
-- Cartoon Law IV
Basil Jet
2019-06-27 12:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track
bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between
them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to
maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but
one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice.
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Richard H. Kirk - Step Write Run.. Alphaphone Vol 1
Recliner
2019-06-27 13:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track
bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between
them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to
maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but
one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice.
Cheaper, lighter? Probably less maintenance required?
Marland
2019-06-27 15:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track
bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between
them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to
maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but
one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice.
Cheaper, lighter? Probably less maintenance required?
Meldon Viaduct on Dartmoor is an interesting one.
The name suggests it is a single Viaduct but it is really two built at
different dates but with a degree of integration between the two. From a
distance the combined structure looks fairly uniform but on closer
examination there are a few differences between the two.

https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Meldon_Viaduct




GH
Guy Gorton
2019-06-27 17:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track
bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between
them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to
maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but
one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice.
Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made
by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to
look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in
the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together
so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford
where there are two independent viaducts with some construction
differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges
over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor,
steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the
last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe
Railway.

Guy Gorton
Graeme Wall
2019-06-27 18:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Gorton
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track
bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between
them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to
maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but
one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice.
Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made
by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to
look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in
the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together
so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford
where there are two independent viaducts with some construction
differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges
over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor,
steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the
last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe
Railway.
Wasn't he the consulting engineer for the Wycombe Railway?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Guy Gorton
2019-06-27 18:16:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:05:03 +0100, Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Guy Gorton
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track
bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between
them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to
maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but
one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice.
Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made
by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to
look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in
the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together
so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford
where there are two independent viaducts with some construction
differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges
over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor,
steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the
last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe
Railway.
Wasn't he the consulting engineer for the Wycombe Railway?
Might well have been. Wycombe Railway was one of those oddities - as
far as I know, never ran a train of their own on their track. There
are still some remnants of Wycombe Railway buildings at High Wycombe.
Lots of rather odd railway history round High Wycombe and westwards.
And east for that matter - GW&GC joint, avoiding Metropolitan
obstruction. Don't get me started!

Guy Gorton
Recliner
2019-06-28 11:10:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:52:37 +0100, Guy Gorton
Post by Guy Gorton
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track
bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between
them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to
maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but
one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice.
Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made
by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to
look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in
the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together
so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford
where there are two independent viaducts with some construction
differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges
over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor,
steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the
last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe
Railway.
I think it's quite common to have a separate structure when the
formation is widened (eg from one track to two, or two to four). But
if building a two-track bridge from scratch, I can't see any benefit
from building it as two physically separate, adjacent single track
bridges. That would almost certainly cost more, be heavier, and
require more maintenance. In particular, it might be very hard to get
maintenance access to the structures that are only an inch apart. How
would they be inspected, painted or repaired?
Guy Gorton
2019-06-29 13:44:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:10:09 +0100, Recliner
Post by Recliner
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:52:37 +0100, Guy Gorton
Post by Guy Gorton
Post by Basil Jet
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track
bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between
them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to
maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but
one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice.
Brunel used both. Maidenhead is the first going west and it was made
by extending the existing spans on both sides. Very interesting to
look at from underneath the river arch. Quite distinct differences in
the constructon techniques. Gatehampton is two bridges glued together
so that at rail level there is no break. The next set is at Moulsford
where there are two independent viaducts with some construction
differences and some connecting mini-arches. Other Brunel bridges
over the Thames demonstrate his versatility - wrought iron at Windsor,
steel on the Henley branch, steel(?) at Bourne End, although the
last-named is probably before his time, it being on the Wycombe
Railway.
I think it's quite common to have a separate structure when the
formation is widened (eg from one track to two, or two to four). But
if building a two-track bridge from scratch, I can't see any benefit
from building it as two physically separate, adjacent single track
bridges. That would almost certainly cost more, be heavier, and
require more maintenance. In particular, it might be very hard to get
maintenance access to the structures that are only an inch apart. How
would they be inspected, painted or repaired?
Brunell's bridges over the Thames that I mentioned are a mixed lot.
At Windsor, the bridge carried two tracks but a long time ago it was
reduced to single line but the bridge is unchanged. Wargrave was also
double track, now single, and half the bridge was removed.
Tha main line bridges all started as double track when built in 1839
and all were widened to 4 tracks in 1890.
Maidenhead was widened on both sides and the two new arches are
slightly different from the original arches - they have a slightly
wider span at river level. Whether there is anything left of the
orginal parapets underneath the ballast, I would not know.
At Gatehampton, the additionial structure is entirely on the Down side
of the line. There is no visible structure berween the old and new
spans which are of exactly the same dimensions. The old span uses
skew-brickwork, the new straight brickwork, so the change is very
visible. Again, I would not know if there are any remnants of the
original parapet under the ballast.
At Moulsford there are two seperate viaducts over the flood plain and
the river. This time, the original viaduct is on the Down side.
There are different construction techniques used on the two structures
but they have essentially the same dimensions.
Brunel was a versatile man!

You may well ask why I have all this somewhat trivial knowledge. The
answer is that back in 1999 I decided that Thames bridges were an
interesting topic so I set about taking photos of all of them from
Albert Bridge, Windsor to Wallingford, (OS map 175 plus a bit at the
west side). 26 bridges used by the public. The Powerpoint show has
been given to many groups with a wide range of interests so I had to
develop talks to suite the interests of the groups.

Guy Gorton
David Cantrell
2019-07-01 11:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
I've always wondered if there is any advantage in having a multi-track
bridge as opposed to several single track bridges with inch gaps between
them. You'd think narrow bridges would be preferable with respect to
maintenance, and also preferable in most conceivable catastrophes, but
one wide bridge seems to be the usual choice.
I would expect one wide bridge to do a better job of distributing load.

Here <http://www.semgonline.com/RlyMag/ReconstructionOfGrosvenorBridge.pdf>
is a non-technical article about how the current bridge(s) was built.

If you can get access then there are a lot more details here:
<https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/10.1680/iicep.1967.8471>
--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in
to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists
D A Stocks
2019-07-01 21:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Guy Gorton
The only links Gatehampton has with transport.London is that the
Thames is flowing towards London and the railway is running away from
Paddington! But that is my excuse for mentioning this lovely viaduct
by Brunell which was built at two diffrent times, using different
brickwork techniques, the two being attached to each other their full
length.
The Grosvenor bridges crossing the Thames outside Victoria were built
similarly, one track at a time, so that the old structure could be
replaced without having to close Victoria station.
The current London Bridge was built as four bridges: the outer spans were
built first, either side of the old bridge, and the traffic was transferred
onto them. Then the old bridge was dismantled and the inner spans built to
fill the gap.

--
DAS

Peter Able
2019-07-01 17:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nowhere.co.uk
Saw this as I took a rare trip up to cockfosters today, never noticed it
before - must have been behind vegetation. There's very little about in
online other than it was meant to defend the depot. I'm no military expert
but I can't really see what its purpose would have been. If the germans
had got to cockfosters then it would have been game over for the tube and
probably the country so what was the point?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4A26d931KctSoVy7
I doubt that it was railway-related. There were many pillboxes nearby,
forming part of a defensive ring around London. Tank traps, too. There
were three in nearby Trent Park, alone. The one you've seen's only
railway link is probably that, because it is surrounded by railway
tracks, it hasn't been demolished !

PA
Loading...