Talk:Packhorse bridge

Lists of packhorse bridges

The list of packhorse bridges is a bit of a mess, probably because it's developed on an ad hoc basis. I've reordered it, up to a point, so that it's alphabetical by placename, but it still has a number of faults:

• it's heavily biased towards packhorse bridges in England
• despite that, it's very incomplete, even for English examples (I can think of fairly well-known examples, such as Viator's Bridge and Ladyshaw Bridge (see Longdendale#Salt_trade) (both Derbyshire), and that at Wycoller, Lancs, off the top of my head).
• it names the bridges only inconsistently
• it's not referenced
• the definition of what constitutes a "packhorse bridge" seems a little uncertain (I removed Burford Bridge, as none of the bridges I know of in Oxfordshire to which that name could apply are really packhorse bridges)

I propose:

• clearing out the bridges that are not packhorse bridges
• researching and adding at least some of the missing examples, with additional information (e.g. river, coordinates, date, style, heritage status)
• adding references
• presenting each country's list as a table similar to that at, say, Listed buildings in Frodsham, with photos where available
• possibly moving the list into a separate article, List of packhorse bridges

I'll work on it in a sandbox somewhere and post a link when I have something to go on. Any other approaches or suggestions? Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Dave.Dunford/Packhorse is something like what I had in mind. I'm slowly converting the "fodder" into table entries. The Geograph collection, many of which have been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons, is a good source of pictures; most packhorse bridges are listed, and British Listed Buildings has latitude and longitude and dates (and is easier to search than the official listed buildings website). Comments/new entries/assistance welcome. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As a fan of bridge articles in general, and also lists of bridges over particular rivers (recently contributing to List of crossings of the Hackensack River, I was pleased to stumble on this article, and your proposal for a separate List of packhorse bridges. I am going to make a numbered list of suggestions, because that makes it easy to discuss each one, but the order is not significant in any way. List will be added shortly. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for a list of packhorse bridges

I support the general concept of a list of packhorse bridges. Should the list attempt to include all packhorse bridges, or perhaps it should be split by country, especially if there are going to be lists of packhorse bridges in Switzerland (cantons rather than counties?) or other places on the continent, or even in other continents. (Near East?) With a single list, even with separate tables for each country, the overall length might become difficult to manage. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Table comments

An entry in User:Dave.Dunford/Packhorse has the columns County, Location, Name, Photo, Crosses, Notes. Numbered comments follow:

1. Presumably County will become Canton or other appropriate small geographical unit in continental Europe.
2. Location includes a town name, and the issue of completeness arises, must there be an article for each town? (I had to create a town article for a CDP for a Schuylkill River bridge.)
3. Name is actually a bridge name. Sometimes the bridge name is difficult to determine, or sometimes there are two or more names. If the bridge name is a red link, is it reasonable to expect that eventually a bridge article will be created? In the example, there is only one bridge article.
4. Photos in the concept example sometimes show the bridge from up or down stream, and sometimes show the bridge as seen by a pedestrian or rider on the bridge. In many cases it is informative to have both, at least in the article. Which is best in the list?
5. Crosses is usually a waterway, but might be something else. The concept example only has Harden Beck without an article, but completeness arises here, too.
6. It is reasonable to guess C17 means 17th Century in the notes column. Perhaps that could be more explicit, at least for the first bridge in the list, or maybe a footnote.

Offering help

You can see that I am very much a detail oriented person. Best wishes with your list. Call on me if you find that I could be of help. My user page has a list of articles I have created, and that list includes 10 bridges and a bridge list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Dthomsen8

Thanks very much for your interest. To answer your comments:

1. Yes. Originally I intended to have a separate table for the bridges of each county (or equivalent), but I think that's probably overkill [edit: I may revise this opinion as the table grows!]. Since I decided to add "county" as a column, I decided on one table per country (though the UK table could get quite long). For countries other than England/the UK, the equivalent polity ("canton", "département", "state" or whatever) would take the place.
2. I'd say, if the location has an article, this column entry should be wikilinked; if not, it can just contain an unlinked placename. Personally, I prefer that to a redlink, unless the redlinks are very few.
3. Indeed - I anticipated this, which is why I didn't make it the first column. If a bridge is unnamed, I suggest this column could be left blank, or set to "unknown" or "unnamed bridge" or whatever. In England, so far, I've generally been able to find a name, though. As with the location, my rationale was to include a wikilink if there was an article (e.g. Beckfoot Bridge) but otherwise to leave the text unlinked. I don't think wikilinking all bridges, regardless of whether there's an existing article, would be a good idea - it would create a lot of redlinks, might cause disambiguation issues, and many of these bridges (particularly outside the UK, I suspect) will probably never have an article.
4. I don't feel strongly. The table looks better if the photos are all landscape in orientation; I just chose the photo that I felt was the most representative of those available - often, there's only one photo, so no choice to be made. Doubtless many bridges will have no available photos [edit: I've been unable to find photos for only a few bridges - probably less than 10%].
5. As for location and bridge name; this column could be left blank, or contain unlinked text.
6. Probably best to expand "C16" to "16th century", etc. It's a relatively familiar abbreviation in historical works but I only adopted it for my own convenience.

I'll extend my sandbox example in light of the above. By all means pile in. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Good work on the sandbox example, Dave! Initially, leave anything without an article without a Wikilink, and look upon this list as a "to do" list for you and I and anyone else we can attract to work on it. I see that "Harden Beck" has a number of references, plus information from Google maps, so later in the week I will do at least a sandbox version of an article. The photos have editors who uploaded a photo, and therefore can be contacted to ask them for a landscape photo or a bridge photo orientation to be added to an article. Town articles are generally not difficult. Consider Parker Ford, Pennsylvania as an example I added for List of crossings of the Schuylkill River.

Continue to work on the sandbox list. I would say that there should be a separate article for England, and depending on length, a separate UK article with tables for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. You will know better than I how many packhorse bridges are likely to be there.

Question for you: generally speaking, can cyclists cross these bridges on a bike, or do they usually walk their bikes across? This information is useful to include somewhere, if known. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've answered this elsewhere, but here's a copy of my answer in case others wondered the same: "It depends on the bridge (and the cyclist!). True packhorse bridges were originally designed for laden horses, so physically they're generally wide enough for cyclists (though they often have cobbled or other rough surfaces that might be difficult to ride on, they may be steeply humped and they tend to have low parapets). However in the UK we have rights-of-way legislation that makes a distinction between footpaths (walkers only) and bridleways (walkers, horse-riders and cyclists) so it would generally depend on the status of the right-of-way that crosses the bridge as to whether a cyclist is (officially) allowed to ride over it. (my understanding is that cyclists can legally push their bikes along footpaths, so long as they remain dismounted, but I believe it's something of a legal grey area.) In many cases the status of the right-of-way will be indicated on the relevant Ordnance Survey map, but sometimes they're in the middle of nowhere with no official right of way over them, or they're on "white roads" on the map whose status is indeterminate. In other countries the rights of cyclists would depend on local regulations and customs. So I'm not sure a simple "yes or no" for cyclists would be practical; but it might be useful to add a column for the status of the right-of-way that crosses the bridge (if any). Some (see Clun Bridge) even have public roads over them, though this is unusual—their narrowness often precludes their use by vehicles. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Passing places over the cutwaters

These triangular extensions are a distinctive feature of most packhorse bridges. Does anyone have sourcing to add them? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Here's what Hinchliffe (1994) has to say on the subject:

"The problems caused by a high hump or the need for strong abutments are reduced by building several arches springing from intermediate piers, though these have the disadvantage that the piers must withstand the full force of the stream in flood, a need which leads to the cutwater. Generally triangular, less often rounded, the cutwater smooths and diverts the force of the water like the prow of a boat and often serves a secondary purpose by being continued upwards to provide a pedestrian refuge. The packhorse bridge in the village of Anstey near Leicester has five semi-circular arches. Each pier has both upstream and downstream cutwaters and above each cutwater is a refuge. Eight refuges in a total span of only 57ft seems generous. Perhaps the packhorse trains passing through Anstey were particularly inconsiderate to pedestrians." (Hinchliffe, Ernest (1994). A Guide to the Packhorse Bridges of England. Milnrow, Cumbria: Cicerone Press. pp. 24–25. ISBN 1-85284-143-5.)

You might be able to work some of that into the article, but my own observations are as follows:

• Although some packhorse bridges have cutwaters and refuges, I don't think it's true to say that they're a feature of "most packhorse bridges". In fact I'd say that only a minority have them: most packhorse bridges in England have only a single span (so no cutwaters by definition) and of the remaining multi-arched packhorse bridges, not all have cutwaters (e.g. [1], [2], [3] [4]).
• Conversely, not all bridges with cutwaters and refuges are packhorse bridges (e.g. Newbridge, Oxfordshire). Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously passing becomes less of a problem for short bridges, so I think there's an implicit and convenient coupling between not needing passing places and passing places being difficult to provide over single spans. I don't think this reduces the significance of passing places being a common feature for multi-span bridges though. I've also never seen a bridge with some refuges. They seemed to build them over all the cutwaters, or none.

As to road width, then I'd consider Newbridge, Oxfordshire, and Newby Bridge to both be packhorse bridges, even though they're both wide enough to carry a single road carriageway today. Both of them are old enough to be of an era when there was no other way of moving freight around. I don't know Oxfordshire, but Newby Bridge certainly was on a significant packhorse route for the local iron and charcoal trades. I don't know if either was ever widened. The Usk bridge was built in the mid-18th century as a packhorse-width bridge, but it was widened for carriage traffic a century later, still with its cutwater refuges. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the cutwater/refuge system warrants a mention—a significant minority of packhorse bridges (including some of the most picturesque and hence best-known ones) do have them. But they're a feature of medieval bridge design in general, and not peculiar to packhorse bridges (though I suppose the extreme narrowness of packhorse bridges would add to the need for refuges). Since reading Hinchliffe's book I've refined my understanding of what a true packhorse bridge is—not all medieval bridges are packhorse bridges, by any means. See my sandbox page User:Dave.Dunford/Packhorse for Hinchliffe's criteria. Essentially, he maintains that if a bridge was built wide enough for a cart, it's not a packhorse bridge. Although he makes exceptions, such as Moulton in Suffolk, neither Newby Bridge nor Newbridge is in his book (not even in his Group 3, which are his "rejects"). I don't know Newby Bridge, but Newbridge (which I believe has never been widened) is too major a crossing, and the roadway too wide, to count as a packhorse bridge. The English Heritage listings will generally (though not always) explicitly describe a bridge as a "packhorse bridge" if they think it is one, and both Newby and Newbridge are described simply as "bridge". Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What's a packhorse bridge (as we choose to define it)? A bridge of "packhorse design", or a bridge used by packhorses? The first also has the issue that we shouldn't become over-dependent on any one single source. Not that a good source would be rigidly dogmatic about the functional shape anyway.

I see the width issue as one of the least significant. Obviously any narrow packhorse bridge becomes a "packhorse bridge that couldn't be anything else", but that doesn't exclude the concept of a wide packhorse bridge also having been built. In the case of Newby Bridge (which is described quite clearly as a "packhorse bridge" by innumerable sources) it has the usual design features, it's wide enough for a wheeled vehicle (I don't know of any later widening), but it also has a well documented packhorse traffic across it that continued (albeit much diminished) into the 1930s. Now IMHO, that's a packhorse bridge, even if it doesn't appear on one particular list.

I'd also support the inclusion of cases like Usk that were built narrow and widened later. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. I'm no expert but I'm not sure that "we" should be defining it—my understanding was similar to your second definition until I bought the Hinchliffe book (which seems to be one of the few titles specifically about this subject, and seems fairly authoritative—English Heritage quote it in some Listed Building citations). He says: "Before the eighteenth century, bridges were described either as "horse bridges" or "cart bridges" and the dimensions and manoeuverability of carts must have been important in distinguishing the one from the other." I'll see if I can find out whether any other authorities have had anything to say on the distinction. It may well be that there are two definitions of "packhorse bridge": a looser layman's definition and a more specific academic definition. If so, the article should at least acknowledge (or explain) the difference, and in my view should favour the more academic definition. But until I look for other sources, that could be just supposition on my part.

Hinchliffe only covers England, so doesn't have anything to say about the Usk bridge, which sounds like a decent candidate. I'm personally less convinced by Newby Bridge (although the fact that it's on a packhorse route is in its favour, and is one of Hinchliffe's three criteria). Packhorses would of course have used it but, and here I'm exaggerating to make a point, pedestrians can use Tower Bridge: that doesn't make it a footbridge!

Anyway, I suggest we postpone this discussion until I've finished work on User:Dave.Dunford/Packhorse - there are plenty of "classic" packhorse bridges there to be going on with; I'm less than halfway through! Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The thing with Newby Bridge is that, like many Lakeland rivers, the Leven is quite easily forded for most of the year (and Newby Bridge is one of the points you'd ford at), and the weather is too foul to travel much during the other period. So the Lakes is generally short on old bridges unless they were on significant packhorse routes, as a laden horse is poor at fording. It may well be that the bridge is newer than some older packhorse route or bridge, but this was the significant crossing point of that valley and its packhorse traffic, for about 10 miles in either direction. The bridge at Backbarrow is later, of the post-packhorse period, and significantly different in design.Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It certainly seems (from what you've said and from, e.g., [5]) that, at the very least, Newby is on the site of a packhorse bridge; and it's certainly old enough to qualify (though it was clearly just wide enough for carts, so Hinchliffe would call it a cart bridge rather than a packhorse bridge). I'm not going to be dogmatic about it and risk breaking WP:OWN—once I've merged in my finished list from my sandbox I certainly wouldn't revert if you added Newby Bridge to the list. But I think we need to be careful of adopting our own definitions, lest we either perpetuate a misconception or stray into WP:OR territory. Cheers. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Streams missing

Only two streams are entirely blank in England, and none elsewhere. Many months ago, I tried to get the name of the stream for Utterby by email, no real answer there. Never tried the Charterhouse one. Any ideas?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Winster, Cumbria

Compston House in Winster, Cumbria

I am writing an article for the village of Winster, Cumbria, to satisfy the red link.

Sources:

• http://www.ukvillages.co.uk/Place/30961/Winster-Cumbria
• http://www.achurchnearyou.com/winster-holy-trinity/
• http://www.thecumbriadirectory.com/Town_or_Village/location.php?url=winster Good source!
• http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMBAD5_Stained_Glass_Winster_Church_Cumbria_UK
• http://www.scrt.co.uk/our-area/ South Cumbria Rivers Trust
• The Rivers Trust Movement
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_%26_River_Trust

Signed long after the section was written by Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Packhorse bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.moultonsuffolk.co.uk/moulton_history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Visiting London and Jersey

I am visiting London and Jersey in early June, and contributing images and information to Wikipedia as I go. Suggestions from packhorse bridge fans welcome. --18:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not very many in those parts of the country, I'm afraid. Surviving packhorse bridges are mostly (though not exclusively) in the north and west of the country. Have a great trip! Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I see Gomshall, Surrey, without an image, and no mention of the bridge in the Gomshall article. No others reasonably close to Forest Gate, and I assume none in Jersey.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Keith Old Bridge

Keith Old Bridge is a packhorse bridge in Scotland! Please add it to this article. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

definition

I find it confusing that the definition states the masonry arches are one horse wide when surely this is the width of the bridge & not of each arch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:680:55C0:8094:CA92:9815:1422 (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)