The Bristol Railway Archive

jules wrote:I am intending to spend an hour or two on Sunday researching S&DJR fence designs from the turn of the century!

There are so many oddities with this gate & fencing that I wonder whether we are looking at a mainline railway company at all. Could it be a private line - to a miltary camp perhaps? (Having said that I've drawn a blank when looking at maps of Bulford & Tidworth both of which had branch lines to them).

mjt wrote:

jules wrote:I am intending to spend an hour or two on Sunday researching S&DJR fence designs from the turn of the century!

There are so many oddities with this gate & fencing that I wonder whether we are looking at a mainline railway company at all. Could it be a private line - to a miltary camp perhaps? (Having said that I've drawn a blank when looking at maps of Bulford & Tidworth both of which had branch lines to them).

This might be an idea for tomorrow .....

So far today, with a combination of trying to draw a plan of what we can see from the photograph, orienting it, then ploughing through a couple of old maps sites - this one that I've posted a link to before http://www.old-maps.co.uk/index.html and this one http://www.npemap.org.uk/(very useful indeed for getting more of an overview), I have looked at every relevant sodding level crossing in an area bounded by Bristol, Dawlish, Chichester and Swindon. And I still can't find the bleedin' thing

Another thought that crossed my mind tonight is that, if indeed the photograph was taken around the time of WW1 (as suggested by the clothing of the subjects), petrol for those bikes would have been hard to come by, as the Germans were busy blowing up everything sailing in the general direction of the UK with their U-boats. Therefore, the likelihood is that, if indeed these people came from somewhere near Yatton, the location of this photograph would probably be not far away. Unfortunately, I thought of that after I had looked at level crossings in Chichester ....

PS - don't blame yourself Jules, I've just let myself get far too much into this one. Perhaps I ought to get a life instead ...

Therefore, the likelihood is that, if indeed these people came from somewhere near Yatton, the location of this photograph would probably be not far away.

That's why I previously though the Weston, Clevedon & Portishead (WC&PR), though I know we've looked at that and couldn't find a suitable site for such a level crossing. But somewhere on WC&PR route would be ideally close to Yatton for a day out on the bike, some of the trees look kind of "coastal" to me - and it would also explain the somewhat non GWR/MR standard fencing, gate and fittings.

Personally, I think Wells isn't over as a candidate. Let's not forget the entire track layout was extensively re-modeled there in the early '30s.

jules wrote: Personally, I think Wells isn't over as a candidate. Let's not forget the entire track layout was extensively re-modeled there in the early '30s.

The problem with Wells is not the track layout - indeed, that 1903 1:2500 scale map shows individual lines and yes, all that seems to add up, as do the buildings in the background.

What doesn't add up is the shadows being cast by the sun. As Ian pointed out, if the photographer was standing where I thought he was standing, those shadows would not be in that position. Furthermore, if the photographer positioned his subjects to as to get shadows like that at that location, he wouldnt have got the infirmary/ workhouse in the background.

The other bit that doesn't add up is the point I realised yesterday that there is no second crossing gate in the shot. There should have been if the location was Glastonbury Road.

If Wells is still "in the frame" (which I accept it could be because of the appearance of the infirmary/ workhouse) then the shot wasn't taken from Glastonbury Road crossing. Logic (and those darn shadows ) would suggest that the photograph would have been taken from somewhere adjacent to the S&D engine shed. I cannot pinpoint anywhere where the photographer may have stood without cluttering the photograph with much more railway paraphernalia.

(Edited to take out a remark about a road - it was actually St Andrew's stream!! )

Robin Summerhill wrote: If Wells is still "in the frame" ... Logic ... would suggest that the photograph would have been taken from somewhere adjacent to the S&D engine shed.

In which case I think the line of sight onto the infirmary would be much the same as that of a photo taken from Tucker Street station looking south. There are several such photos (admitedly all post-WW2) in Phillips' 'Steaming Through the Cheddar Valley'. To my eyes the infirmary/workhouse in these is a taller, more forbidding building than the one in 'our' photo - in spite of the further distance of Tucker St. (Then there's the industrial chimney - but might that be 1920s?)

mjt wrote:

Robin Summerhill wrote: If Wells is still "in the frame" ... Logic ... would suggest that the photograph would have been taken from somewhere adjacent to the S&D engine shed.

In which case I think the line of sight onto the infirmary would be much the same as that of a photo taken from Tucker Street station looking south. There are several such photos (admitedly all post-WW2) in Phillips' 'Steaming Through the Cheddar Valley'. To my eyes the infirmary/workhouse in these is a taller, more forbidding building than the one in 'our' photo - in spite of the further distance of Tucker St. (Then there's the industrial chimney - but might that be 1920s?)

If it isn't Wells I think I'll have to throw in the towel on this, because I extended the search yesterday to the MSWJ, the military establishments on Salisbury Plain and the Severn & Wye, and nowhere else comes even close to being as good a match as Wells.

The problem with my idea about it being from somewhere near the S&D shed, and mjt's about being from Tucker Street, is that there is no level crossing at these locations, even pedestrian only ones, and it is clear from the photograph that there are people waiting at a pedestrian gate to cross the line.

Something else I checked yesterday was the SDJR website photo pages on Wells (here: http://members.sdrt.org/stations/wells/ ... ctures.htm ). There is nothing there that directly helps to confirm or deny the theory (people kept wanting to take shots of trains and the railway buildings, not the level crossing ) but they did give me this final idea:

There is clearly a pedestrian crossing gate at the far left of the picture. The pedestrian crossing gate at Glastonbury Road was on the west side of the road (you can see that from the photos on the SDJR website). This being the case, it might be that we cannot actually see the crossing itself in the photograph, and what we have been thinking all along is the crossing gate is in fact a bit of fence between the crossing and Priory Road station. That piece of fence didn't look like that by the 1950s (once again see the SDJR website photos) but perhaps somebody got involved in some "make do and mend" in pre-grouping days?

If all this conjecture is actually the case, we have the following scenario:

1. The photographer has positioned his subjects in the small area of land between the eastern end of the station platform and the level crossing (this might also explain the posts in front of the bikes) and aimed south west, with the station building itself possibly helping to shield the camera lens from the sun. The shot would have been taken late afternoon in the summer which would possibly explain the shadows.

2. The angled metal that we see through the fence on the extreme right is indeed the stop block on the end of the siding shown in the 1903 OS map.

3. The angle on the workhouse would be correct, with what appears to be the three-storey section showing only its roof at the rear of the shot.

What does anybody else think?

I rather agree. If they were in the area between the station and the crossing then the angles do work. I still think it is a gate though ... Could it be for something else needing access to the railway? Looking at the S&DJR photos, there has obviously been a concrete panel fence erected in what would be the same general area?

What makes me uneasy, especially after looking at the S&DJR pictures, is that our mystery pic looks a lot more tree populated and airier site, whereas the S&D pics give the impression of quite a cramped area, with no trees in sight anywhere at all!

This was posted by ShipsCompass today, owner of the photograph:



Bigger version here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/glosters/5 ... otostream/

As you know, he visited the site specially and thought Wells was impossible. It does seem like the Priory Health Centre today looks like a different building, but this pic doesn't look much like the health centre in the architects brochure I posted here earlier either!

This latest picture is obviously the front of of the building (which concurs closely with the map), so we've been looking at the NE facing side wing, which must have been of different architecture and period - and more as represented in the architects leaflet. It might not even still be there.

One thing looking at the S&DJR photos: the telegraph poles look vaguely similar to our one.

At the very least, if the mystery pic is in France or some other far flung country, I think we can congratulate ourselves with having found an astonishing coincidence!

Looking at Google Earth, you could almost set up the same shot today, by standing in the middle of the A39 / A371 roundabout, though it appears our wing of the workhouse has been demolished?

jules wrote: What makes me uneasy, especially after looking at the S&DJR pictures, is that our mystery pic looks a lot more tree populated and airier site, whereas the S&D pics give the impression of quite a cramped area, with no trees in sight anywhere at all!

The S&D pics don't show the area between the railway and the infirmary, except for the aerial shot on page 1 that was taken in 1950. By this time the Tincknell building was there.

The 1903 map and indeed the 1930 1:2500 scale map show that the area between the railway and the infirmary was undeveloped, as is suggested in "our" photograph.

jules wrote: As you know, he visited the site specially and thought Wells was impossible. It does seem like the Priory Health Centre today looks like a different building, but this pic doesn't look much like the health centre in the architects brochure I posted here earlier either!

This latest picture is obviously the front of of the building (which concurs closely with the map), so we've been looking at the NE facing side wing, which must have been of different architecture and period - and more as represented in the architects leaflet. It might not even still be there.

Being apparently in dire need of a life I too visited the site on Sunday afternoon but, in truth, there is little more to see on site than everybody reading this can see in Google Earth. However, after that visit and looking at the maps again I noticed that the first line of buildings shown on the maps, and in the photograph, do not appear to be part of the infirmary. There is a detached house on the right hand side of Glastonbury Road just beyond where these buildings are shown on the maps, which is still there and has a date stone in the front elevation showing 1890, and that of course also appears on the maps. As the access to Tincknells yard stands right next to it, it seems clear that this rank of houses must have been demolished, at the very latest when the Tincknells building went up, as it is standing where they once stood. The maps tell us that they were still there in 1930.

Incidentally, if you enlarge the 1903 map (use the "Enhanced zoom" facility) you will see that there are four houses in this terrace, and the first building line in the photograph does indeed seem to comprise 4 houses.

This means that the infirmary buildings would be the second line of buildings that we see, and the third which is indicated by the roofline in the background. The second line of buildings in the photograph emerges above the seated officer's head. So this what we are comparing with the infirmary today, not the first line of buildings

jules wrote: One thing looking at the S&DJR photos: the telegraph poles look vaguely similar to our one.

I thought the same, and in the right position.

jules wrote: At the very least, if the mystery pic is in France or some other far flung country, I think we can congratulate ourselves with having found an astonishing coincidence!

Agreed

Postscript to the above:

When you look at the third building line in the photograph (the one where only the roof is visible) you will see that it ends before the second building line. This is also as shown on the 1903 and 1930 maps.

It is inevitable that the workhouse/infirmary would have been knocked about a bit in 100 years, with extensions being built, sections demolished etc, so the building footprint now is unlikely to be anything like it was in 1914. That is why I made the point back a few pages that you need to look at those things that would stay the same and would probably be replicated in any extensions. This means the stonework, the roofline, roof material, the window openings in the elevations and the chimneys. So, to finally (?) summarise:

1. We can confirm the pedestrain gate to the level crossing is in the right place
2. We can explain why the posts in front of the bikes are there (marking a pedestrian way from the station to the crossing)
3. We can explain why that lamp on the fence is positioned at 45 degrees (towards the station forecourt)
4. The telegraph poles are in the right place
5. We can explain that piece of angled metal at the far right of the photograph as the stop block for the siding adjacent to the station, as shown on the OS maps
6. The number of houses in the demolished rank appears to be 4 from both the photgraph and the OS extracts
7. The 1903 and 1930 maps show us that the third building line stops short of the end of the second building line. This is confirmed in the photograph.
8. The basic components of the infirmary look the same today and in the photograph.

9. We also have a bloke who says "Wells is impossible"

Whether or not I am right about the location being Wells, one thing is for certain ...

I now know one hell of a lot more about the railways in Wells than I would ever have done if that photograph had never been posted here!

Thanks Jules

PS - when I said in an earlier post: "there is little more to see on site than everybody reading this can see in Google Earth " it should have read "there is little more to see on site than everybody reading this can see in Google Earth and Google Streetview"

Sorry Robin I'm convinced it's not Wells. Not only is there a problem with the orientation with respect to the sun but the layout of the buildings is wrong.

I think we're agreed that the photographer would need to of been stood near the triangle below the hotel on the 1903 map.

The row of four houses was where the R Ticknell & Son Ltd building is today. When viewed from the same location as the photographer in google streetview this building is fairly close, whereas the first row of buildings in the photograph is some distance from the photographer.

In the photograph there is a dark building immediately to the right of the sign and second telegraph pole. This building is closer than the first row of buildings and to the left. I cannot place this building on the 1903 map.

In the photograph the photographer appears to be level with the end of the first row of buildings. This ties up to where the photographer is placed on the 1903 map, however from this angle the left hand side of the following rows of buildings would finish about a third to halfway along the first row of buildings. In the photograph they appear to extend pretty much level with the left hand end of the first row of buildings.

The buildings do look like a workhouse and there are plenty more of these to look at to see if they are a better fit!!

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/

Ian

BristleGWR wrote: Sorry Robin I'm convinced it's not Wells.

Well at least it gives us something to post about and hopefully entertain other readers and, lets face it, its been a bit quiet around here for a few days

BristleGWR wrote: Not only is there a problem with the orientation with respect to the sun but the layout of the buildings is wrong.

The shadows "work" with my revised idea (see earlier posts and further down this one)

BristleGWR wrote: I think we're agreed that the photographer would need to of been stood near the triangle below the hotel on the 1903 map.

I stepped away from that idea in my later posts. As I said in them, I now think he was standing next to the railway in the small area of land between the station and the crossing. This position would give a slightly different angle on the background that overcomes the shadows issue

BristleGWR wrote:The row of four houses was where the R Ticknell & Son Ltd building is today. When viewed from the same location as the photographer in google streetview this building is fairly close, whereas the first row of buildings in the photograph is some distance from the photographer.

It is difficult to scale the 1903 map as, although we know it is at 1:2500 originally, we don't know the true scale when we are looking at it on our PC screens, especially if we blow it up to get the detail.

If you look at the aerial photograph on the S&D web pages (the top one here: http://members.sdrt.org/stations/wells/ ... ctures.htm ) and perhaps also the modern 1;25,000 plan here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=35 ... +Somerset+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf you will see that the Tincknells building is rather larger than the cottages it replaced. It will therefore appear that the north elevation of that building will appear closer to where the station was than those cottages would in the photograph.

BristleGWR wrote: In the photograph there is a dark building immediately to the right of the sign and second telegraph pole. This building is closer than the first row of buildings and to the left. I cannot place this building on the 1903 map.

If building it is. It could be a covered gateway, and I took this to be represented on the 1903 map by the small black rectangle immediately south west of a larger tetragon , the most northerly corner of which is adjacent to the end of the siding.

BristleGWR wrote: In the photograph the photographer appears to be level with the end of the first row of buildings. This ties up to where the photographer is placed on the 1903 map, however from this angle the left hand side of the following rows of buildings would finish about a third to halfway along the first row of buildings. In the photograph they appear to extend pretty much level with the left hand end of the first row of buildings.

I'm not sure that either of us can be completely confident on this point. The second row of buildings, being 2-storey, are effectively being hidden by the first row of building which are also 2-storey. I have blown the photograph up as much as can before its sharpness begins to degrade, and I could not say for certain where that second line of buildings ends on the left hand side. I can see no definite trace of the roofline beyond a chimney which is partially obscured by the cables running down from the top right of the photo. There are some chimneys a bit further to the left which do look the same as those on the second line of buildings (above and to the right of the standing man) but they don't look to me like they belong to a building behind the first line. Although they could be and, even if they are, it doesn't blow the idea of Wells quite out of the water because they are very similar to those on the detached house beyond Tincknells (you can see this in Google street view). I am not saying that these are those chimneys, but if you get an exact enough position on Google street, and also look at the 1903 map and the more modern one, you will see that this building once had an extension on the back which is no longer there.

BristleGWR wrote: The buildings do look like a workhouse and there are plenty more of these to look at to see if they are a better fit!!

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/

Perhaps this could be your "homework" for this weekend? I've spent far too much time on this already

Robin Summerhill wrote:

BristleGWR wrote: Sorry Robin I'm convinced it's not Wells.

Well at least it gives us something to post about and hopefully entertain other readers and, lets face it, its been a bit quiet around here for a few days

Robin Summerhill wrote:

BristleGWR wrote: Not only is there a problem with the orientation with respect to the sun but the layout of the buildings is wrong.

The shadows "work" with my revised idea (see earlier posts and further down this one)

I'm sorry Robin but they still don't "work"!! I recommend the application The Photographer's Ephemeris (TPE), this application gives you the azimuth and altitude of the sun (and moon) for any day/time of the year for any location and plots lines on a google earth view showing the direction of the sun (and moon). The application is free and can be downloaded from here: http://stephentrainor.com/tools

The alignment of the railway where the photographer may of been is pretty much the same as Strawberry Way is today. On the photo the shadow cast by the first post onto the second post shows that the sun is on the photographers side of the line, it's difficult to say by how much but at a guess I'd say at least 15 degrees. As you'll find by using TPE only around the longest day of the year does the sun get to the same alignment as the railway and that is at sunset.

Robin Summerhill wrote:

BristleGWR wrote: I think we're agreed that the photographer would need to of been stood near the triangle below the hotel on the 1903 map.

I stepped away from that idea in my later posts. As I said in them, I now think he was standing next to the railway in the small area of land between the station and the crossing. This position would give a slightly different angle on the background that overcomes the shadows issue

Noted!!

Robin Summerhill wrote:

BristleGWR wrote:The row of four houses was where the R Ticknell & Son Ltd building is today. When viewed from the same location as the photographer in google streetview this building is fairly close, whereas the first row of buildings in the photograph is some distance from the photographer.

It is difficult to scale the 1903 map as, although we know it is at 1:2500 originally, we don't know the true scale when we are looking at it on our PC screens, especially if we blow it up to get the detail.

If you look at the aerial photograph on the S&D web pages (the top one here: http://members.sdrt.org/stations/wells/ ... ctures.htm ) and perhaps also the modern 1;25,000 plan here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=35 ... +Somerset+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf you will see that the Tincknells building is rather larger than the cottages it replaced. It will therefore appear that the north elevation of that building will appear closer to where the station was than those cottages would in the photograph.

I've superimposed the 1903 map onto various other maps/images. By superimposing it on a google earth view I have deduced that the location where you are placing the photographer is roughly the blue sign in the flowerbed on the north west side of the roundabout.
By superimposing it on a modern OS map I can deduce the scale; the front of the row of 4 houses is about 53 metres from the spot on the roundabout. The front of the middle row of the workhouse is about 178 metres from the spot on the roundabout. More on this below!!

Robin Summerhill wrote:

BristleGWR wrote: In the photograph there is a dark building immediately to the right of the sign and second telegraph pole. This building is closer than the first row of buildings and to the left. I cannot place this building on the 1903 map.

If building it is. It could be a covered gateway, and I took this to be represented on the 1903 map by the small black rectangle immediately south west of a larger tetragon , the most northerly corner of which is adjacent to the end of the siding.

If it was that small black rectangle then the photographer would of had to of been stood in the station to make this appear left of the row of four houses.

Robin Summerhill wrote:

BristleGWR wrote: In the photograph the photographer appears to be level with the end of the first row of buildings. This ties up to where the photographer is placed on the 1903 map, however from this angle the left hand side of the following rows of buildings would finish about a third to halfway along the first row of buildings. In the photograph they appear to extend pretty much level with the left hand end of the first row of buildings.

I'm not sure that either of us can be completely confident on this point. The second row of buildings, being 2-storey, are effectively being hidden by the first row of building which are also 2-storey. I have blown the photograph up as much as can before its sharpness begins to degrade, and I could not say for certain where that second line of buildings ends on the left hand side. I can see no definite trace of the roofline beyond a chimney which is partially obscured by the cables running down from the top right of the photo. There are some chimneys a bit further to the left which do look the same as those on the second line of buildings (above and to the right of the standing man) but they don't look to me like they belong to a building behind the first line. Although they could be and, even if they are, it doesn't blow the idea of Wells quite out of the water because they are very similar to those on the detached house beyond Tincknells (you can see this in Google street view). I am not saying that these are those chimneys, but if you get an exact enough position on Google street, and also look at the 1903 map and the more modern one, you will see that this building once had an extension on the back which is no longer there.

OK. The land around that area is reasonably level. The photographer is at 'ground level' when he/she took the photograph. Based on those dimensions above in order to see the buildings behind the row of four houses these would need to be at least 3.36 times higher than the row of four houses. If we're saying the row of four houses are two storey then in effect the other building must be at least 6 storey, or have very tall ceilings!!:lol:

Robin Summerhill wrote:

BristleGWR wrote: The buildings do look like a workhouse and there are plenty more of these to look at to see if they are a better fit!!

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/

Perhaps this could be your "homework" for this weekend? I've spent far too much time on this already

Maybe next weekend!!

Impressive arguments, and the only one where I would take even the tiniest issue is your assertion that ehe buildings in the background would need to be 3.36 times higher than those in the foreground. Have you taken into account that, although reasonably level, the land does in fact fall away (Google Earth shows 112ft above sea level on the roundabout, 105 feet at the hospital)

If you take on the challenge of finding a better match then I wish you all the best, because I have looked at every relevant sodding level crossing in the south and sout west of England and I cannot find anything that comes anywhere near as replicable as Wells.

If its out there its hiding pretty well