News:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: The Snodland Bridge.  (Read 12742 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline conan

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
  • Appreciation 74
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2016, 00:00:05 »
To remain ignorant of what happened before you were born is to remain a child......Cicero

Offline Longpockets

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Appreciation 12
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2016, 16:26:33 »
The new bridge named Peters Bridge from/to Holborough/Halling to/from Wouldham/Burham, there is currently no direct access to Wouldham, Hall Road is closed.

Offline smiler

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • Appreciation 68
  • Far better to be screwed up than screwed down
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2015, 09:27:28 »
Thank you Longpockets, answers my question and a lot more.

Offline Longpockets

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Appreciation 12
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2015, 19:24:00 »
Anybody any idea when todays bridge will be finished

The new river bridge plus a new bridge over the railway are expected to be finished summer 2016.

See here - http://www.trenport.co.uk/Article/Bridge-update

More information here - http://www.trenport.co.uk/NewsList.aspx?CategoryID=1003



Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2015, 17:48:16 »
There was a bridge at Wouldham when I worked for the Royal Engineers from January 1944 to about March 1945. It was on trestles and so was semi-permanent. See Item 13 of the list here and the replies and photo further down. I think it was independent of the Bridging School. Also more references to Wouldham and Snodland bridges at intervals throughout the thread

http://www.kenthistoryforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4305.0

Looking again at the photo of the Snodland bridge, it seems to be resting on civilian type lighters and is blocking the river, so must have been temporary, or have I got it wrong?
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline smiler

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • Appreciation 68
  • Far better to be screwed up than screwed down
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2015, 17:08:36 »
Anybody any idea when todays bridge will be finished

Offline Dave Smith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
  • Appreciation 10
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2015, 11:25:14 »
The Wouldham Bridge would almost certainly have been at the R.E's Bridging Camp there. We, senior scouts of various Medway Troops, were given permission to use it- it was then empty of "bods"- during the summer of 1945, possibly '46, for a week-end camping. All sorts of activities were organised, including a rope bridge, but nothing actually on the Medway so I don't remember seeing the bridge itself. If a Bailley type, maybe it had already been dismantled as was doing sterling work in France!

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2015, 22:25:08 »
Possibly a bit off topic, but may give an idea for how long the wartime bridge was there..

There was also a Bailey Bridge over the Medway at Wouldham from (when?) until the end of the war, as a back-up for Rochester Bridge. Assuming the one at Snodland was a back-up for Maidstone its life span would have been about the same,
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

Offline HERB COLLECTOR

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Appreciation 218
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2015, 21:54:58 »
Snodland did have a bridge over the Medway, for a short while at least.
© IWM (H 24843) A Bailey bridge under construction over the River Medway at Snodland in Kent, 24 October 1942.

Offline stewyrey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 134
  • Appreciation 7
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2013, 16:40:34 »
I noticed that the first illustrations, when downloaded, did not show the dimensions
clear enough.

      stewyrey.

Offline stewyrey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 134
  • Appreciation 7
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2013, 16:36:27 »
A better veiw.

    stewyrey.

Offline Bobdonk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Appreciation 22
    • Bus Walks
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2013, 16:11:45 »
The story continues

THE SOUTH EASTERN GAZETTE, TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 190©i

ANOTHER BRIDGE SCHEME REVIVED.
THE DANGER OF COMPETITION.
For the seventh or eighth time the Bridge Wardens of Rochester are to be impressed with the necessity of improved communication across the river Medway between Rochester and Aylesford. A committee, composed of representatives appointed by the Parish Councils of Snodland, Halling, Wouldham, Burham, Birling, and Ryarsh, and the Parish Meetings of Addington and Trosley, and of which Mr. W. R. Hodgkinson is Chairman, has recently discussed the matter, and it has determined to approach the Bridge Wardens with a view to the erection of a bridge or the construction of a subway at a point in the vicinity of Snodland to be selected by the Wardens themselves. The committee is decidedly representative of an extensive district to which a bridge or subway would be a great advantage in the direction of establishing business relations between parishes to whom the river is at present an unsurmountable barrier and in providing the employes at the Cement Works with easy means of access to and from their work ; and in its representation it is quite probable it will be even further strengthened by the addition of members of the West Mailing Parish Council, which, together with the Wrotham Urban District Council, is naturally interested in the project. The only existing direct means of communication between the parishes Of Snodland, Hailing, Birling, and Ryarsh on the west side of the river and the parishes of Burham and Wouldham on the east side is a ferry, plied by a private individual for his own profit. The ferry naturally fails to provide facilities for business enterprise, and it does not by any means fully meet the public convenience in the one direction for which it is worked. After ten o’clock at night it is not available, and numerous workmen desirous of making the passage after that hour are compelled to either abandon the hope of reaching home until the morning or to undertake a long tramp round by Aylesford or Rochester Bridge. The very existence of the ferry is, of course, an argument in favour of the proposed bridge or subway and that argument becomes something of a demand in face of the daily traffic. A single day's record showed that no less than 781 persons crossed the river in this boat, and it is modestly estimated that, on an average, over 600 persons use it every day. This traffic alone undoubtedly establishes the fact that a bridge or subway is greatly required ; and, apart from any prospective view of promoting trade and opening up the district between \Vrotham and Sittingbourne, the Parish Councils enumerated have sufficient need to prompt them to the action they are taking.

The proposal is and must be detrimental and, in some measure, competitive to that for a new and more commodious bridge at Aylesford. The amount of the grant of the Rochester Bridge Wardens to the suggested new bridge at Aylesford will no doubt be determined by the number and nature of other claims upon their funds. The erection of a bridge at Snodland would, financially, be a heavy undertaking, the most heavy, in all probability, next to that at Aylesford, which the Bridge Wardens would have immediately in view ; and in this way the interests of the residents of Suodland and the neighbourhood and those of the county town come into direct conflict, in addition to the possibility of a bridge at Snodland diverting some of the trade of Maidstone into other channels. It is not the first time this has occurred ; but it is to be earnestly hoped the projects will not in the present instance prove disastrous to each other, though one is reluctantly compelled to foresee the possibility of it. The consummation of the Aylesford scheme depends entirely upon whether the Bridge Wardens  increase their former offer to the amount of the balance required to meet the whole cost. At Snodland without, at least, substantial aid from this body there is very little possibility of a bridge ever being erected. It may be that the division of the funds will decrease the two grants to an extent which would necessitate the abandonment of both schemes ; and their competition would then materially aid those who seek the assistance of the Wardens in effecting minor improvements. Would it not be well for the advocates of both schemes to boldly face this possible contingency and endeavour to come to some arrangement whereby the Bridge Wardens, in the event of their inability to contribute sufficiently for both schemes to be carried out, might be given to understand that one proposal would be withdrawn to enable them to increase their grant to the other to the necessary extent? In making this suggestion we assume that the Bridge Wardens could be convinced of the priority of these two claims over any others that might be made to them. The history of the two schemes show that they have already so far acknowledged the justice of them as to intimate their preparedness to make substantial grants £16.000 in the case of the new Aylesford bridge and £10.000 in the case of the proposed Snodland bridge  towards both schemes. It is not our purpose to discuss the relative merits of the two schemes here. We should be pleased if both could be carried out; but if they cannot then the office of arbitrator might devolve upon the Wardens, or the Bridges and Bonds Committee of the Kent County Council and the promoters of the two schemes might fairly leave either body to select the more important and most urgent.

The advocates of the establishment of permanent means of communication across the Medway at or near Snodland have had three schemes under consideration at one time or another. The cost of a high level bridge was early found to be prohibitive, and that scheme has long since been abandoned. A low level bridge was next considered, but to this serious opposition was raised by the proprietors of the Burham Cement Works on account of the extra labour that would be entailed owing to the necessity of lowering masts to permit of their barges navigating the river, A subway was next thought of, but it was never a popular idea, and, presumably, anxiety to obviate the necessity of adopting any such scheme led to inquiries, the result of which justifies the present committee in the hope that engineering skill could overcome the difficulty and devise means whereby a low level bridge—probably swing or telescopic—would be possible. It was apparently in 1876 that tho proposal was first made. In 1878 it was renewed, and since then it has been at least four times under discussion, viz. : m 1830, 1881, 1892, and 1895. Neither in 1876 nor in 1878, when Mr. W. Lee, at one time M.P. for Maidstone, presented a petition to the Bridge Wardens, did it meet with much favour ; but in 1880 the promoters were so far successful as to induce the Bridge Wardens to intimate their willingness to apply to the Charity Commissioners for power to borrow money for the erection of’the bridge on certain conditions, with which, however, it was found impossible to comply, mainly owing to the non-existence Of any responsible public authority. The proposal, therefore, dropped through. The effort of 1884 was likewise nearly successful;. The Malling Highway Board then agreed to keep the approaches in repair, and the County consented to maintain the fabric. Some fatal difficulty, however, arose as to the possibility of charging certain expenses on the County rates. In 1892 the Bridge Wardens definitely offered to contribute £10,000 if the Kent County Counoil made application to them within two years. The following extract from the report of the Bridges and Roads Committee indicates the attitude thus adopted by the County Council:—“Your committee being advised that the Council has no power either to construct a subway or to maintain a ferry the only question;for your committee is whether- they can recommend the Council to erect or to contribute towards the erection of a bridge across the river between the points mentioned. It appears that the necessary land for the approaches cannot be obtained except under compulsory powers which would have to be acquired by Act of Parliament, and it also appears that no contribution from employers or others in the locality is to be expected, the sum offered by the Rochester Bridge Wardens being regarded as representing such contribution, a view to which your committee are unable to assent. Upon the whole matter your committee have resolved that they cannot recommend the Council that any part of the cost of the erection of a bridge at this point ought to fall upon the County Fund. At the same time vour committee are of opinion that if such a bridge were erected by others; the Council would be justified in undertaking the' maintenance of it, and they accordingly recommend the Council to resolve that while refusing to erect or contribute towards the cost of the erection of such a bridge, they would, in the event of its being erected by others in a substantial and commodious manner under the direction or to the satisfaction of the County Surveyor, or other person appointed by the  Council be prepared on completion to take it over and thenceforth maim tain and repair it as a county bridge.”

In 1895*6, the last occasion upon which: the proposal was made there were rival schemes at Snodland and Halling, and good ground gained was lost, as the following report, adopted by the Kent County Council shows-:—“ Your committee have been called on to further consider the two alternative schemes-, which have been previously before themj.for the erection of a bridge over the Medway, either at Snodland or between Wouldham and Halling  The proposal in each case is that the committee should recommend the Council to exercise powers conferred by section 6 of the Local Government Act, 1888 and erect a county bridge at one or other of these points at the expense of the County Fund, aided by substantial contribution, from, the Rochester Bridge Wardens,, and also by grants from, owners of a portion of the land required for the approaches. Your committee have received deputations in support of each, of-these proposals and have examined the plans of the proposed bridges. They have also considered a careful report from.the County. Surveyor on the probable public utility of a county bridge at one or other of the proposed sites. In the result your committee have come to the conclusion that they are unable to recommend the Council to take in hand either of the proposed schemes, upon the broad ground that the demand for such a bridge is not sufficiently general in its character to justify the expenditure thereon of any part of the County Fund and that no bridge at either of the sites in question would be of such general public utility to persons using the main roadis and other highways of the district as to warrant the Council in burdening the Special Rate, not merely with a part of the cost of erection, but with the whole cost of maintenance hereafter, a liability of serious aud uncertain extent.” In the past the scheme has had warm advocates in the Hon. E. V., Bligh and the Rev. J. G. Bingley, formerly Rector of Snodland. whilst the members of a General Committeee in 1892 included Earl Stanhope,. Earl Darnley, Viscoumt Falmouth, Lord Medway, M.P., the Hon. Ralph P. Nevill, Mr. A. G. Boscawen, M.P.,. Sir W. Hart Dyke, M.P-., Mir. J. Bazley White, the Right Hon. Shaw Lefevre, M.P., Mr. W. M. Cazalet, Sir M. W. Collet, Sir Francis Geary, Bart., Major-General J. S. Kemball, Major Warde, M.P., Major-General ft. Dawson-Scott (Commandant S.M. Engineers,. Chatham), Colonel T. W. Scott (Commandant Royal Mariues), Lieutenant-Colonel Holland, C.B.., the Mayor of Chatham, and many other representative gentlemen of the neighbourhood. A petition in its favour was signed by nearly 3,000 persons. Locally, much hope of success is eur tertained since the settlement of home differences and the amalgamation of the various parishes most affected in the promotion of one scheme.

Offline mmitch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Appreciation 11
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2013, 15:20:18 »
Perhaps it was waiting for the M20?  :)
mmitch.

Offline smiffy

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
  • Appreciation 60
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2013, 15:04:55 »
£20 per yard! I wonder how much to construct this bridge today? And as Sentinel asks, why wasn't it built? It looks like the go-ahead was dependent on the County Council.

Offline peterchall

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • Appreciation 186
  • 25.06.1929 - 12.03.2016
Re: The Snodland Bridge.
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2013, 12:11:58 »
As has been stated many times previously, "you learn something everyday on the Forum". Today it`s a new word for me - "Premiated". The spell checker failed, but it`s in the dictionary. I wonder how many other members are checking on this one which, at first glance, appears to be a spelling error.
Here's one who's checking! Oxford and Collins dictionaries don't show it, but 'dictionary.reference.com' defines "premiate" as ' To grant a prize or award'. So presumably Mr. Woodhouse was granted a prize for his design.
It's no use getting old if you don't get artful

 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines