The Highway Bridge Question.
Page 4
Page 5
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By H. Howard Humphreys, ACI.Mech.E.
(Continued from page 4., Railway Companies Bridges.
Unfortunately, it generally happens that, when a new line is to be constructed, the majority of the public roads with which there is interference is in the hands of district rather than county councils, and, whatever may he the case in the future, it cannot be gainsaid that in the past these authorities have not generally secured bridges whirl were strong enough to carry maximum road loads. RR defined by the 1878 Highways and Locomotives Act.
The difficulty with regard to bridges which were weak originally is, however, only one side of the question ; there is another and a serious aspect to be considered. At the present time, railway stock is at rather a low figure— some of it almost valueless. The consequence is that companies are not at all inclined to do more than to meet the barest necessities with regard to up-keep: indeed, in some cases, they will not even do this, preferring to let their overbridges become dilapidated until such time as a turn comes in trade. The Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, Section 65, provides that " Where, under the provisions of this or the special Act or any Act incorporated therewith, the company are required to maintain or keep in repair any bridge. fence, approach, gate or other work executed by them, it shall be lawful for two justices, on the application of the surveyor of roads or of any two householders of the parislcor district where such work may be situate complaining that any such work is out of repair, after not less than 10 days' notice to the company, to order the Company to put such work into complete repair within a period to be limited for that purpose by such justices, and if the Company fail to comply with such order, they shall forfeit £5 for every day that they fail to do so, and it shall be lawful for the justices by whom any such penalty is imposed to order the whole or any part thereof to be applied in such manner and by such persons as they think fit in putting such work into repair."
The remedy in these particular cases may be less cumbersome and expensive than in the case of bridges owned by local authorities where proceedings must be by indictment, but there are undoubted difficulties in connection with the application of the above clause, as, in the first place, it is necessary to bring the complaint before local justices by either the surveyor of roads or two householders. It is quite conceivable that the householders might be difficult to get, in case of a stranger conducting through traffic in a district, and the same difficulty may also apply in regard to getting the local surveyor to lay an information. Nor does the tribunal before whom the case has to be heard seem to be quite the best for dealing with what may probably develop into a highly-technical matter.
Bridges Reparable by Canal Companies and Similar Private Corporations.
Of the four classes of bridges mentioned, these are probably the most difficult of all to deal with. The total mileage of canals and navigations in the United Kingdom is about 4,670 miles. Of this total, 3,639 miles lie in England and Wales, but only a comparatively-small percentage of this length is actually worked to any extent, and, with few exceptions, those lengths which are carrying a fair amount of traffic are making next to no profit. The inevitable result is that, upon derelict waterways, like the London and Hampshire Canal. bridges have been left for many years to take care of themselves. On those which are not in such a hopeless condition, repairs are done at the pistol's point, whilst companies paying a small dividend also maintain a position. of extreme astringency with regard to expenditure on anything which is required to. bear loads other than those which will bring dividends.
There is another rather-unfortunate circumstance with regard to canal bridges, and that is that the bulk of them was designed before the year 1830 (commencement of the railway era), whilst many of them were built to what may he called a typo pattern—hog-backed in elevation, and bottle-necked in plan. The result is that, as most of them are in brickwork, and on the soor6 of narrowness and steepness, they are not generally suited to carry heavy or bulky loads, The position with regard to canal bridges was well brought out when Mr. Thomas, manager of the Grand Junction Canal Co., gave evidence, in 1904, before the Departmental Committee on Motor Cars. He stated that there were between 300 and 400 bridges over their canals, and that his company proposed to put notices upon the majority of them warning locomotive drivers that they were unsafe to carry anything except the ordinary traffic of the district. If these notices were observed, it would mean that the greater portion of the country between London and Leicester would be severed so far as locomotives are concerned.
Take, again, the case of the bridges carrying the highways over The New River, in the neighbourhood of London. As is well known, all these structures are comparatively close to the Metropolis, and there are no fewer than 64 of them which had warning plates affixed in June, 1905. Indictment is the remedy for non-repair. There are many other instauees of similar restrictions being placed in the way of self-propelled traffic, as, for example, the enormous number of warning-plates which have been put up by the South-Eastern and Chatham Railways. in and around the civility of Kent, both under the Heavy and Light Locomotives Act, These notices appear to be multiplying, and they have really been the means of focussing attention on the bridge problem.
Existing Powers.
Hoeing now dealt with the position as to maintenance of the four classes of bridges, it will be well, perhaps, to consider what powers exist which have for their object the prohibition or restriction of traffic upon the same. In the first place, under the 1861 Locomotives Act, a notice may be erected in a conspicuous place, by the authority of the serveyor or persons liable to repair the bridge, stating that it is insufficient to carry weights beyond the ordinary traffic of the district, and, if such notice appears upon the bridge, it is unlawful to cross it with any weight which ,,as not in the common order of traffic at the time the bridge was built. If, in spite of the notice, heavy traffic is taken over the bridge illegally, an injunction can be applied for against the person conducting the traffic, and, although there is no fine in this case, he can be restrained and penalized in costs. If damage is done to the bridge, then the owner of the heavy and extraordinary vehicle is made liable for the Caine.
The 1898 Locomotives Act varies the procedure, with regard to closing bridges, for it states that a county council, and in some cases a borough council, may by bylaw prohibit or restrict the use of a locomotive on any specified bridge in their county or borough if they are satisfied that such bridge is unsuited for locomotive traffic, or that such use would be attended with damage to the bridge or danger to the public. The council which makes such by-law is bound, however, to obtain the consent of the Local Government Board, in order to render the bylaw valid, and a full opportunity is afforded for aggrieved persons appearing before a Local Government Board Inspector and putting their case. If the by-law is passed and an owner contravenes the same, there is a fine of £5 on summary conviction for each offence. The same Act of Parliament also provides for an appeal being lodged, in the case of owners being aggrieved by reason of notices which have been placed upon a bridge under the 1861 Locomotives Act, or under any by-law made under the 1898 Act. But, if an owner is to be in a position to appeal successfully under this clause, he must prove that the bridge is at the time of his appeal strong enough to carry the traffic which he proposes to bring upon it. With regard to this appeal, there is some slight confusion, for it seems uncertain whether the 1898 Act intended the Board of Trade to have the power of confirming by-laws which a county may make in respect of railway bridges, or whether the Legislature intended that the Local 'Government Board should be the confirming authority. Neither of these two Government Departments is clear as to their duties herein, for, upon application being made to them for information upon the point, they stated that in any specified cases of railway bridges they would be prepared to confer together. The power of owners and users of locomotives to appeal to the Local Government Board, under the 1898 Act, has been very largely and very successfully used, but the power to appeal against notices erected under the 1861 Locomotives Act has not been largely used, possibly because locomotive owners have got into the habit of rather disregarding the notices in question and using the bridges in spite of them—in many cases with heavy risk to themselves, although it is only fair to state that upon very large numbers of bridges the notices erected under the 1861 Act have only been put up with the object of protecting the owners in the event of damage being done to the bridges by the passage of heavy traffic.
Restrictive Clauses in respect of Motor Car Acts.
The restrictive clauses which were issued originally in 1904, in pursuance of the 1903 Locomotives Act, were repealed, so far as bridges are concerned, by an Order dated the 11th February, 1907. This Order is still in force, and it enacts that where a, person who is liable to repair a bridge states in a prescribed notice that the bridge is insufficient to carry a, heavy motorcar with a registered axle-weight beyond a certain specified amount, or that alternatively the bridge is insufficient to carry a heavy motorcar drawing a, trailer if the registered axle-weights of the several axles exceed a given amount, then the .owner of any such heavy motor shall not cause the car to be driven over the bridge except by the consent of the person liable to repair of the same. If a, dispute arises as to the alleged insufficiency of the bridge to carry the specified weights ani a reference is made to arbitration, and the arbitrator or umpire considers the bridge sufficient to carry the car, then the conditions set out on the notice posted upon the bridge shall not apply, and the person liable to repair of same shall remove such notice. If within a. period of one month after a request in writing by the owner of the car the person liable to the repair of the bridge neglects or refuses to become a party to a submission to arbitration, then the Article as to weight shall also cease to apply, and the person liable to the repair of the bridge shall remove every such notice affecting the car and the bridge; but the person liable to the repair of the bridge may still at any time by a prescribed notice specify a greater weight than -that given in the preceding notice (subject to appeal as before), that is to say, he may correct his notice with regard to weights. after an inquiry has been made into the matter, or after the notices may have been removed consequently upon his
default to submit to arbitration. Whilst it is probably better that there shall be an appeal to an arbitrator than no appeal at all, it is unsatisfactory to feel that there is no impartial Government official appointed to deal with bridge appeals, as is the case under the Heavy Locomotives Acts, where inspectors of the Local Government Board, who are thoroughly experienced in these matters, settle the technical questions in the cheapest and mostefficient nay possible.
Proof of Strength.
It will be evident, from abet has been written with regerd to the restrictive clauses of the various Heavy and Light Locomotives Acts, that, in order to retain the " user " of bridges which have had notices affixed to them, it is necessary for the 'person conducting selfpropelled traffic to be in a position to prove absolutely that the bridges are in fact strong enough to carry his traffic. Generally speaking, it will be intensely hard to prove anything of the sort, for, in most cases, where notices are now placed upon bridges, considerable care is taken by local authorities and private companies to put up a correct statement of the weights which the bridge may safely be allowed to carry, and, therefore, appeal against notices which have been actually affixed is of very little use, although appeal to the Local Government Board against the confirmation of by-laws restricting bridges has been of the very greatest service in the past.
Mention has already been made of the fact that powers appear to be overlapping, as between the Heavy and Light Locomotives Acts, and the question is frequently asked by owners of heavy road locomotives whether they will be liable, if they drive over a bridge which has had a notice affixed to it under the Acts of 1896 and 1903, which refer to motorcars. That well-known authority, Mr. joynsoii-Hicks, states that in his opinion bridges cannot be closed to heave locomotives by by-laws made under Light Locomotives Acts, as there is no appeal under such bylaws, whereas, under the by-law clauses of the 1898 Heavy) Locomotives Act, an owner can appeal; if bridges could be closed to the heavy engines by by-laws pursuant to tho Light Locomotives Acts, it is clear that the owner of such engines would have his right of appeal taken from him. This would certainly never be tolerated.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks also gives it as his opinion that, if a notice has been placed upon a bridge under the Meter Car Acts of 1896 and 1903 (and Orders thereunder) specifying that the bridge is safe up to a given weight, assuming that the locomotive traffic over the bridge is extraordinary and damage is done, then the owner of the heavy locomotive would be liable for damage he might do although the notice as to limit weights was under the Motor Car Acts.
A case as to liability, in connection with the Motor Car Acts and Orders, is one where the motor-owning company desire to knew what their position would be if they crossed a bridge in spite of the restriction as to weight. In such a case, they would be liable under the 1896 Act to a fine not exceeding £10, even if they did no damage; and, if they did damage. to a fine not exceeding £10 and to repair the damage done, and they would further be liable for any payments incurred during the obstruction, interruption or delay to persons entitled to the use of the railway over which the bridge was built. This liability for damage is imposed by Section 7 of the Locomotives Act of 1861, and also by Section 13 of the same Act, neither of which sections are repealed, even in favour of heavy motorcars, by the Light Locomotives Acts of 1896 and 1903.
17'o be cord issued.)