Difference between revisions of "Flowerpot Railway Bridge, Exeter"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
See [https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/633491 here] for photo and map. | See [https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/633491 here] for photo and map. | ||
It was originally a three-arch masonry bridge carrying the railway line between St. Thomas and St David's Station in Exeter over a waterway | It was originally a three-arch masonry bridge carrying the railway line between St. Thomas and St David's Station in Exeter over a substantial waterway. The waterway is long gone, but the piers' cutwaters remain, and the topography has been changed by the deposition of spoil. | ||
A point of interest lies in the fact that at some point one of the arches was removed and replaced by a plate girder bridge. This would have imposed thrust loading on the remaining potion of the pier. For this reason, and perhaps to increase the load rating of the bridge, additional brick arches were constructed beneath the original | A point of interest lies in the fact that at some point one of the arches was removed and replaced by a plate girder bridge. This would have imposed thrust loading on the remaining potion of the pier. For this reason, and perhaps to increase the load rating of the bridge, additional brick arches were constructed beneath the original stone arches. The gaps (spandrels) between the old and new arches were infilled with brickwork at the exposed faces, and by some other method within. The spandrels are not symmetrical on opposite sides of the arch. | ||
The arch brickwork is in three layers, which were laid parallel (rather than in helical courses, which would be difficult in this situation). An open formwork would have been needed | The arch brickwork is in three layers, which were laid parallel (rather than in helical courses, which would be difficult in this situation). An open wooden formwork would have been needed during construction of the new arches, with planks inserted to support the bricks as work progressed. | ||
Thanks to the author of [https://billharvey.typepad.com/Bridges%20final%20with%20front%20page%20and%20map%20links.pdf this article] for pointing out that this is a more interesting bridge than might first appear.<ref>[https://billharvey.typepad.com/Bridges%20final%20with%20front%20page%20and%20map%20links.pdf] Devon Buildings Group: 23rd Annual Conference, 14 June 2008: Devon Bridges, p.13</ref> | Thanks to the author of [https://billharvey.typepad.com/Bridges%20final%20with%20front%20page%20and%20map%20links.pdf this article] for pointing out that this is a more interesting bridge than might first appear.<ref>[https://billharvey.typepad.com/Bridges%20final%20with%20front%20page%20and%20map%20links.pdf] Devon Buildings Group: 23rd Annual Conference, 14 June 2008: Devon Bridges, p.13</ref> | ||
Revision as of 20:09, 18 November 2021
This may not be the official name for the railway bridge between Exwick Playing Fields and Flowerpot Playing Fields.
See here for photo and map.
It was originally a three-arch masonry bridge carrying the railway line between St. Thomas and St David's Station in Exeter over a substantial waterway. The waterway is long gone, but the piers' cutwaters remain, and the topography has been changed by the deposition of spoil.
A point of interest lies in the fact that at some point one of the arches was removed and replaced by a plate girder bridge. This would have imposed thrust loading on the remaining potion of the pier. For this reason, and perhaps to increase the load rating of the bridge, additional brick arches were constructed beneath the original stone arches. The gaps (spandrels) between the old and new arches were infilled with brickwork at the exposed faces, and by some other method within. The spandrels are not symmetrical on opposite sides of the arch.
The arch brickwork is in three layers, which were laid parallel (rather than in helical courses, which would be difficult in this situation). An open wooden formwork would have been needed during construction of the new arches, with planks inserted to support the bricks as work progressed.
Thanks to the author of this article for pointing out that this is a more interesting bridge than might first appear.[1]