Highway Bridges.
Page 10
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Specially written for "The Commercial Motor" by H. Howard Humphreys, M.Inst.C.E., M.Inst.Mech.E., Consulting Engineer on Roads to the British War Office.
(Continued from page 115)
These sections of the Act very usefully provide for the taking over by the county of any bridge which may be certified to be in a lit condition by a duly appointed officer of the county council, providing always that the county council see lit to assume the responsibility. The sections referred to state that a council may make such contribution as it sees Lit, out of the county rates, towards the cost of any bridge to be hereafter erected, after the same has been certitied, etc., as a proper bridge to be maintained by the inhabitants of the county, so always that the contributions shall not exceed tiAe half of the cost of erecting such bridge. Where a town or parish had clearly been liable to maintain any bridge, the Statute of Bridges of 1702 empowered the Quarter Sessions to make enquiry as to non-repair, and to assess the local authority without the formality of a presentment by the Grand Jury; but where the inhabitants of a borough are liable by usage to repair bridges within their area, the remedy for non-repair is by indictment. Either proceeding is formidable enough and practically useless at the present day.
Late in the Eighteenth and in the early part of the Nineteenth Centuries, a large mileage of canals was constructed : highways were cut through and structures of brick or stone, some of which barely sufficed to carry the traffic of the time, were often built over these canals. No standard rules appear to have been laid down as to strength, and Parliament dealt leniently with the promoters of private companies so far
as the responsibility for subsequent up-keep was concerned. A fresh complication occurred when the Railway Era was inaugurated, and at the present day we find that, broadly speaking, private bridges upon public roads are being maintained (0 by the Lords of the Manor (ratione lenterae); (2) by canal companies; (3) by railway companies; and (4) by water companies. Public bridges are, on the other hand, under the control of nearly all grades of local authorities. Under such circumstances, the complexity of the whole problem is prodigious, and it is difficult to find a single remedy which will impose the minimum of unfairness upon the responsible parties if the bridges have to be brought up to date, and made fit to carry self-propelled traffic. The question would, of course, be far less difficult had the bridges been maintained in the past to the standard of strength to which they were originally built, for, whilst on the one hand there are very many cases where the design was bad, it is not going too far to say that builders of old bridges as a rule used
plenty of materials in the actual weight-bearing portions of their structures, and that time has been a more important factor in the undoing of their good work than has traffic.
So far as canals and water companies are concerned, there does not appear to have been a general liability imposed as to the maintenance of bridges, but the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 specifies that a railway company shall keel) in repair any bridge built by them and in default of so doing " it shall be lawful for two justices on the application of the surveyor of roads or of any two householders of the parish or district where such work may be situated . . . to order the company to put such work in complete repair within a period to be limited for the purpose by such justices." There is obvious difficulty with regard to this clause, especially in the case of through traffic, for, presumably, at the present time, neither the surveyor nor two householders, under ordinary circumstances, would take the matter up.
Causes of Restrictive Legislation.
Numerous inventors, amongst whom Murdock, Symington, Trevithick, Dumbell, James, Anderson, Gurney, Naysmith, Church, Hancock, Crompton, and many others, experimented in the early and middle Victorian times, with greater or lesser degrees of success, upon the problem of applying steam to common roads. As far back as 1833, Hancock drove his steam carriage round the open space in front of the Guildhall, but, as Mr. Wm. Fletcher says in his " Steam on Common Roads," between 1840 and 1857 no new steam carriages were constructed, or, if any were made, no pnrticulars of their design or records of their trials have been chronicled; for a time there seems to have been more or less of a lull in operations. In 1858, however, a revival took place, and another serious attempt was made to popularise self-propelled vehicles. Mr. Richard Tang-ye states in his autobiography that the movement which was on the point of becoming successful was stultified almost at its inception by the fact that Parliament in its wisdom decreed that no self-propelled vehicle should proceed at a greater rate than four miles per hour upon a highway (i86x). This legislation was brought about by the representations of reactionary farmers and country squires, who held then (as now) that the roads were made for horses only. The energy and ability of mechanical engineers who were interested in this problem was then diverted—partially at any rate—to another side of the case, namely that of a heavy road engine which would be successful at a comparatively low speed.
Notwithstanding the fact that agricultural locomotives and traction engines were introduced primarily for the benefit of farmers, their appearance upon public roads at once brought about a tremendous outcry, and the 186s Locomotives Act was drawn up with the object of propitiating the country squire and protecting the public generally.
Early Restrictive Clauses.
There appears in the 186i Act the first restrictive clause with regard to bridges, both public and private, and section o states that it shali not be lawful for the owner or driver of any locomotive to cross any bridge upon which a conspicuous notice has been placed (by properly authorised persons) statirg tied: the bridge is insufficient to carry weights, beyond the ordinary traffic of the district, unless a consent has been obtained beforehand from the bridge master or surveyor. This clause carried with it an appeal section, but notwithstanding this fact notices were put upon a vast number of bridges quite strong enough to carry any locomotive; the owners of the engines often being comparatively weak men financially, and no society existing to take up their cases, there was no challenge to the statements as to the strength of bridges. Traction engine traffic therefore received an early discouragement ; but, although it was not rendered impossible, it was greatly inconvenienced. There was no consistency in the action of bridge owners, for some local authorities put up notice plates upon nearly all their bridges, and private companies took advantage of this clause to prevent locomotive traffic as far as possible. Worse was to follow. Practically unabridged power was given to local authorities by the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act of 1878, as under section 3r they could make bye-laws absolutely preventing the use of any bridge " where such authority is satisfied that such use would be attended with danger to the public." The work of satisfying local councils upon this point did not generally prove exhausting, and the 1878 Act naturally came to be used in preference to that of 1861, because there was no appeal to a higher authority.
In 1896 it was shown, before the Select Committee that was appointed to enquire into various laws affecting locomotive engines on roads, that there had been an abuse of power by the local authorities, the case for an insertion of an appeal section being strongly supported by Mr. Thomas Coddrington, MAnst.C.E., than whom probably there was and is no greater expert upon these questions. When the new Locomotives Act of 1898 was passed, local authorities %yho wished to restrict traffic over their bridges had once more to agree to an appeal being made to the Local Government Board. At the present time, the proprietor of heavy road locomotives can appeal against a notice affixed under the 1861 Act or, in the event of a council's attempting to make a bye-law under the r898 Locomotives Act, he can object, and, in the event of his so doing and making out a prima fuck case, the Local Government Board hold an inquiry and satisfy themselves by evidence and inspection as to the actual condition of the bridges.
Position of the Motor Wagon User.
Having now briefly followed the causes which have led up to restrictive legislation, so far as heavy locomotives (traction engines and the like) are concerned, it will be well to see what amendment of the law is required in the interests of those owners of commercial motor wagons who work under the Locomotives on Highways Acts of 1896 and 1903. Unfortunately, the earlier of these Acts was drafted when the Select Committee upon Heavy Locomotives was sitting. Consequently, the disadvantages of giving unabridged power to local authorities, as per the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act of 1878, was not appreciated, and Section 1, Sub-Section A, provided that---" The council of any county or county borough shall have power to make bye-laws preventing or restricting the use of such locomotives upon any bridge within their area where such council are satisfied that such use would be attended with damage to the bridge or danger to the public." The Departmental Committee on Motor Cars, who issued their report in 1904, had the question of bridges brought home to them from both sides with a certain amount of force, but they appeared to take the view that this vital section of the motor question was only " to a limited extent within the terms of our reference." They state that, whilst the public bridges upon main roads are, as a rule, strong enough to carry locomotive traffic, there are a large number of old bridges (often belonging to railway and canal companies) which are stated to be unfit for any greater weight than those at present authorised. The Committee further go on to say that there are a large number of bridges the existence of which may fairly be weighed against an undue extension of the weight limits for motorcars.
(To be conhnued.)