1

THE OLD BRIDGES OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND

Synopsis

I am now preparing the final version of my survey of the oldest masonry bridges in the British Isles, i.e., those

incorporating substantial elements built before 1700. Though I shall continue to update the document as I identify

additional bridges that meet the criteria for inclusion, and increase the number visited, I shall not again change the

format. It still centres on the information sheets with photographs together with descriptive and historical notes pulled

together from all sources available to me for the bridges I have visited, and lists those that fit my criteria, but have not

yet been visited, sometimes referred to as targets. As should be expected, the introduction which follows gives some

background, and explains the ground rules which have guided me towards finding, viewing, and accumulating

information about the said structures, and about the ways in which I am now organising and presenting the data.

Using these rules, I had identified 838 bridges, by October 2015, and was able to provide information sheets and

photographs of the 719 bridges fulfilling my criteria which I had visited at that date. Since then, I have identified a few

tens of bridges which were not on my lists, visited a few, and as part of the process of reorganising the data, removed

a number of bridges from the lists, either because they have collapsed, or because it has become clear that they do

not fit my criteria by some margin. I have also adopted a clearer policy towards those bridges which seem to be

inaccessible, not because of physical difficulties in reaching them, but because they are on private land, and cannot

be seen from public roads or footpaths. I am removing them from my lists of targets, although if I should manage to

view any of them, I shall of course make an entry for it.

There are a number of major changes in the mode of presentation of the data, which I shall detail in the introduction

which follows. In essence, I will no longer group the bridges into clusters, or use sketch maps to show their

approximate positions on rivers, and relative to each other. I am switching to a more orthodox arrangement of the

bridges by county, region or province, depending on the country, grouping the latter into larger units such as ‘Scotland’

and ‘Northern England’. Information will still be supplied about the watercourse crossed by every bridge, and the

Ordinance Survey location is also given. For each of the larger units, I will provide tabulations which bring together the

key measurements, and features which I have to hand, for all of the bridges visited so far, and discuss them, in the

context of their locality and eventually, the national picture. At this time I am in a position only to present the data for

old Scottish bridges in the new format, as in this posting. The old bridges of Northern England should follow by the

end of the year, and the rest in stages up to spring 2016.

Other parts of the document are relatively unchanged, with the introduction still including a brief discussion of the

engineering issues faced by builders of the bridges described in the Information Sheets; as an aid to understanding

these issues, I include a tabulation of river lengths and outflows (taken from the Natural Environment Research

Council web site, which I reference). There is a Glossary of terms used in the Information Sheets. Finally, I provide a

growing Reference list, including books, learned papers, and web sites, which I have found useful or interesting.

2

Contents

Synopsis

1. Introduction and General Remarks

2. Compendium of Bridges

2.1 Old Bridges of Scotland

2.2 Old Bridges of the North of England Not Yet Available

2.3 Old Bridges of the English Midlands Not Yet Available

2.4 Old Bridges of the South-East of England Not Yet Available

2.5 Old Bridges of the South of England and the Upper Thames Valley Not Yet Available

2.6 Old Bridges of the Far South-West of England Not Yet Available

2.7 Old Bridges of Wales and the English Marches Not Yet Available

3. Glossary

4. References and Bibliography

3

1. Introduction and General Remarks

The survey contained in this document stems from some years of casual observation around the country, which

became more focussed when retirement yielded greater opportunities to search out old bridges systematically. I bring

no professional expertise to the pursuit as I am not an architect, civil engineer, or surveyor, but a qualified physicist

who spent a working life managing industrial research and development, so the standpoint is that of a reasonably well

informed layman. No-one discussing old English and Welsh bridges can go very far without mentioning Edwyn

Jervoise who over a decade around 1930 produced four volumes which identified old bridges, described them, and

searched out documentary evidence of their antiquity and vicissitudes over the years. Though his focus was narrower

than the great Tudor traveller, John Leland, he can be seen as creating a modern version of the famous ‘Itineraries’, at

least with regard to bridges and rivers. He included much material dealing with bridges which no longer stand, but

occupied important sites. Rightly or wrongly, and it is unlikely to have been possible anyway, I have felt no need to

consult most of Jervoise’s sources directly because my observations have convinced me of his trustworthiness,

competence, and thoroughness in most regards. A volume of slightly different format covering Cornwall was produced

in the same period by different authors, Henderson and Coates who maintained similar standards, before Jervoise

completed the picture for England and Wales by producing a volume dealing with the old bridges in Devon, based on

a survey carried out by the aforementioned Henderson, who unfortunately had died before he could publish his

results.

Jervoise produced his books for a purpose, which was to identify a national cultural resource, and to encourage those

charged with the preservation of historical artefacts to appreciate the importance of old bridges and act accordingly. In

a sense, the timing was opportune, because the upsurge in motorised road transport of the previous few decades,

though vastly less than was to come, had already resulted in many characterful old bridges being seen only as narrow

bottlenecks which would have to be drastically modified or replaced. Unfortunately, for many outstanding examples,

Jervoise’s survey had come more than a hundred years too late. The great age of turnpike road development in the

late 18th and early 19

th century had encompassed demolishing or reconstructing many fine medieval bridges, with

even the greatest civil engineer of that time and perhaps all-time, Thomas Telford, carrying some responsibility.

Concurrently, in towns and cities across the land, rocketing populations and corresponding increases in commercial

horse-drawn traffic had required that the barriers to communication imposed by some of the finest old bridges be

removed, and too often this meant obliteration and replacement of the bridge. Thereafter, Victorian attitudes to old

bridges tended to replicate their ruthless modifications of churches to contemporary needs and tastes.

Fortunately matters have proceeded differently in the modern era, with considerations of the ‘built heritage’ moved up

the agenda, and if Jervoise had lived past 1955 and been able to repeat his survey in recent times, I think he would

have been pleasantly surprised. Relatively few of the bridges which he listed have collapsed, been demolished or

even been greatly altered during the eighty plus years which have passed since he was actively surveying them. Many

have been bypassed, and now carry only pedestrians or light local traffic. Either by design or serendipity, a good

proportion of those which have been modified in a major way, as much before as after 1930, have been left relatively

untouched on one of the upstream and downstream faces, so that the original structure can still be viewed and

appreciated (For obvious reasons, it is usually easier to extend at one face, since only one new structure is required,

though approaches do need to be realigned.) Clutching at straws, there are also examples where the main river bridge

has been totally rebuilt, but flood arches remain, from which the original configuration can be divined, though it would

4

be wrong to pretend that such relics usually answer all the pertinent questions about the original bridge. Not

infrequently, a bridge viewed from the level of the carriageway appears to be a completely modern reconstruction, but

it is possible to descend to the river bank and view the original arches and soffits, perhaps with ribs and arch rings, but

now enclosed and extended by new arches or cantilevered beams. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that the

different methods of modification sometimes furnish an added level of interest, though it is unarguable that there are

also examples of unsympathetic reconstructions which have removed any real link with times past, and frankly ruined

a historic artefact. Unfortunately, this is very often true of the parapets, practically always rebuilt in modern times,

sometimes decoratively, but not necessarily in the style of the rest of the bridge, sometimes functionally under the time

pressure imposed by safety considerations, after a heavy vehicle has ploughed into them, and sometimes it seems,

according to an architect’s whim of little obvious merit. I rarely devote much space to this aspect of any bridge being

described.

I am not sure if Jervoise would have seen his books as ‘popular works’, though they are in my view almost

indispensable to the enthusiast who wants to find and view old bridges, and learn a little about their history and most

notable characteristics. Quite simply, there is still nothing to approach them as an accessible, nationwide survey,

though they do have their limitations to which I shall have to return. They have been out of print for years, but it is still

easy to obtain second-hand copies at reasonable prices. There are a growing number of relatively recent publications

which consider bridges from different standpoints; by implication there has been an upsurge of interest and especially,

a realisation by some, though by no means all, local bodies responsible for tourism that an impressive old bridge can

be a draw. Some books deal mainly with the aesthetic pleasures to be gained from viewing bridges in their settings,

and depend heavily on the quality of their photographs, or other depictions like old engravings and paintings. Others

focus on the history and anecdotes associated with bridges, with the devil frequently featured as a prominent actor.

Entertaining as the latter may be, they can also frustrate when it transpires that a well-told tale refers to a bridge which

was knocked down a few centuries ago. At the other extreme are of course civil and mechanical engineering manuals,

standards and text-books which deal with bridges as working structures. Some books attempt to bridge the gap in a

manner of speaking, by seeking to explain the principles of design in a basic way. It is likely that the masons and other

craftsmen who erected ancient bridges were little better equipped with theoretical engineering knowledge than readers

who absorb and comprehend the information so presented, though of course the former were usually blessed with the

wisdom of experienced craftsmen; certainly the medieval masons and even the aforementioned Telford would be

confounded by the structural models and finite element solving techniques which underpin the designs of today.

Usually, if not always, such analyses guarantee stability and longevity, while at the same time allowing the bridge

members to be matched more closely to the duty which will be placed on them, so yielding economic and sometimes

aesthetic benefits. For example, many ancient masonry bridges are supported on piers which we would now regard as

un-necessarily heavy, and apart from extra costs of construction and diminished elegance, the resulting obstruction to

water flow can make flooding more likely.

In the reference pages there are brief comments on many of the books and web sites I have found helpful, but I take

the chance now to highlight two fairly recent volumes one authored by Harrison which addresses general questions

about medieval bridges, such as those concerning their locations, fabric, and designs, in an illuminating fashion.

Harrison provides an overview absent from the writings of Jervoise whose purpose was more specific. The other book

worthy of special notice is an Encyclopaedia of British Bridges, authored by McFetrich, which contains many

5

descriptive entries and pictures of bridges covered in this document; it ranges much wider in the types and ages of the

bridges with which it deals than I do, but my focus on a narrower population means that I can claim that my survey is

more exhaustive for its subject matter. Jervoise and Harrison confined their attentions to England and Wales, and

there are no comparable volumes for Scotland, but there is a valuable web-site, named appropriately ‘About

Scotland’s Oldest Bridges’ which covers similar ground. It lists those Scottish bridges which appear in a notable

survey by Roy in the 18th century, and on older maps produced by Pont and Blaeu, (the earliest available sources).

There are brief descriptions, photographs, links to other relevant websites and exact locations on a map are given,

while some more general articles are beginning to appear. Like my own document, albeit to a lesser extent, it is work

in progress, so a few omissions of well-attested old bridges which I think I have spotted, have either been addressed

already, or no doubt soon will be. Anyone interested in Scottish bridges is also fortunate in being able to consult a

series of papers produced by H.R.G Inglis, best known as a map-maker, almost exactly a century ago, because he,

even more than Jervoise is entitled to be viewed as the pioneer of modern studies of old bridges. Dealing with a much

smaller population of bridges, though he did not confine himself to Scotland, but made comparisons with bridges in

England and the rest of Western Europe, he set himself to understand the requirements and constraints in the minds

of medieval bridge-builders, and the resulting impacts on designs. It can be argued that some of his conclusions go

further than the evidence allows, but that is a matter of opinion, and it is disappointing that his work is not referenced

or presumably known about, by many of those who have written on the subject in the last few decades.

For Scotland, and more for England and Wales, there are books which deal with old bridges in specified regions and

counties; like all books on the subject, they are of variable quality and I reference only those which enhanced my

knowledge or appreciation, but the best are excellent. Also, there are a few web sites which ambitiously itemise all the

bridges, regardless of age, in single counties, and provide photographs and information culled from many sources,

including the Listed Buildings and PastScape web sites, perhaps the most indispensable references of all. (The

problems in using these latter websites arise from the quantity of entries amongst which those dealing with bridges are

a very small proportion, and the sometimes unpredictable bridge names which register with their search engines.)

Finally, I should mention Hinchcliffe’s excellent compendium of packhorse bridges, with the slight reservation that his

selection has been weighted very heavily towards the North of England, where I think he was based. Unfortunately he

ventured, (in print at least), into neither Scotland, nor Wales.

……………………………..

I have said something of the growth of my interest in old bridges, and how I developed the mode of presentation which

I have employed in the previous versions of this document, the most recent of which remains available on my website.

The idea of grouping the bridges in clusters, which included bridges in close proximity regardless of whether they

crossed the same or connected water courses, or were found in the same formal geographical divisions, grew out of

my difficulties in using Jervoise’s books to develop itineraries for viewing them. He ordered the bridges he described

according to the rivers they crossed, which although logical, means that bridges fifty miles or more apart can be on the

same page, while bridges relatively close to each other are to be found chapters or even books apart. However, I think

that my clusters have outlived their usefulness, as have the sketch maps which I employed to locate the bridges within

each of them. In order to cover the whole of Great Britain, without greatly expanding the number of clusters I had to

move away from the idea that they referred only to dense populations of bridges in small areas, and many lost their

raison d’etre. As for the sketches, the need to produce a new version, each time I added or removed a bridge was too

6

time-consuming, and as the number of the identified bridges increased, some of them became overly cluttered.

However, I must make it clear that although I have changed the mode of presentation, and as I shall make clear, used

the new format to transform the accessibility of information about old bridges, the core remains unchanged. This

comprises an ever-expanding compendium of approximately 700 information sheets, one for each bridge visited,

containing physical details of the structure, photographs, and brief notes on history and ease of access.

So, I have now assigned each bridge to one of seven geographical divisions covering all of Great Britain, (I intend to

add Ireland later). They are;

1. Scotland

2. The North of England

3. The Midlands of England

4. The South-East of England

5. The South of England and the Upper Thames Valley

6. The Far South-West of England

7. Wales and the English Marches

I have as far as possible kept important river catchment areas together, hence for example the grouping of Wales and

the English Marcher counties is to allow the inclusion of most of the River Dee and River Wye catchments, though it

was not feasible to do as much for the River Severn. I have taken some cognisance of the division of England and

Wales used by Jervoise, and his associates, though I have not stuck rigidly to their boundaries. The divisions contain

very different numbers of bridges, but this is made manageable by a further break-down into sub-divisions of the

larger entities, i.e., regions in Scotland and Wales, provinces later in Ireland, and old-style counties in England. These

smaller units provide the means of accessing individual bridge information sheets, in the same way that the clusters

did before, namely clicking on the name of a sub-division in a divisional table opens the document containing all the

sheets for bridges in that sub-division.

The revamp allows a major enhancement of this document as compared with its predecessors. For each of the seven

divisions, I will provide two tables, which as well as containing information which locates every bridge, on the OS grid

and by river and catchment area, will also itemise their key dimensions and features, such as width, maximum arch

span, and arch ring number and design. The best estimate of build-date for each bridge is also provided. To my

knowledge, this amount of information has never been made easily accessible before, though I would acknowledge

the debt owed for my new format to Inglis, mentioned earlier, and to O’Keefe and Simington’s book on Irish Stone

Bridges. There are, of course, gaps in the data which I shall attempt to fill, in time. The value of making this data,

which I have acquired from many of the referenced sources as well as my own observations, far more easily

accessible is that it allows comparisons to be made, and trends to be identified both within the seven geographical

divisions and between them. To begin this process, I provide short discussions which I expect to expand in time. (I

could have attempted all this using the clusters, but the number of bridges in many of them was too small to allow

meaningful comparisons).

7

There has been no change in the criteria which determine whether or not a bridge appears in this document. I have

not included all the bridges I have visited because I decided that some bounds needed to be set. Jervoise quirkily

included some bridges built in the 19th century as ‘ancient’ (working around 1930), dealt, sometimes at length, with

bridges long vanished, and though I have not done a full count, must have included upwards of 2000, and there are a

couple of hundreds more in the Devon and Cornwall companion books. Knowing that I was intending to deal with

Scottish bridges as well, I would have been contemplating a task of visiting 2500 bridges if I had decided to follow the

example of Jervoise. However, I have no compelling interest in bridges erected in the industrial age, even if happy to

admire the best of them, so I began with the idea of dealing only with medieval bridges, which would strictly have

meant a cut-off date close to the end of the 15th century. I soon realised that this was inappropriate and unworkable,

because there was continuity in bridge design into the Tudor age (in England), even if preferred arch shapes changed

a bit, and Leland’s survey, carried out during the first half of the 16th century acknowledged no break-point at 1500,

included many Tudor bridges, while serving as the key marker for the existence of many of the oldest bridges. Similar,

if weaker, considerations led me to vacillate as regards the Stuart age (in England) as well. The clinching arguments

for making 1700 my break-point came from the other direction, working back from the Georgian age during which

great divergences from the past as regards bridge design and construction methods and materials occurred. It is also

true to say that bridges were built in the 18th century and later under the supervision of professionals, be they

engineers or architects, whereas before then with obvious exceptions like Inigo Jones, the control was in the hands of

artisans like masons, and amateurs like squires and churchmen. So my selection is probably best described as

comprising ‘pre-modern’ or ‘pre-industrial age’ masonry bridges, though the terms medieval and sub-medieval would

also be appropriate, with the latter seen as including the 17th century; however, terms like old or oldest remain true

enough if more vague, and I have most often stuck with them. I have not been absolutely rigid in observing the 1700

cut-off especially as regards Scottish bridges because developments were later there, and I have shown a small

amount of flexibility in other regards as well, which I shall come to next. Nonetheless, my choice has caused me to

omit such as the Turnpike road bridges, Telford’s great road-building projects, and the Wade and Caulfield bridges in

the Scottish Highlands, together with all canal and railway bridges, and has reduced my programme of visits to almost

manageable proportions.

I began with the intention of focusing on substantial river bridges, as opposed to smaller packhorse and foot bridges,

but this is another distinction I have found it sensible to abandon because not a few of the latter were substantial in

every dimension save width, when built, and widening operations since have rendered a significant proportion of them

indistinguishable at first sight from other old bridges. So, such bridges appear, as do clapper bridges which in much

modified form have also graduated from the role of footbridges to road bridges. Unfortunately my date-based criterion

is far harder to apply for such bridges, than for larger river bridges, for two reasons at least. One is the scarcity of

documentary evidence for small and relatively inexpensive bridges, many of which were built on the initiative of a

single person who had no reason to communicate much on the matter. The second is the inherent simplicity of many

of them which means that they often have few if any distinctive features related to their ages. A majority of surviving

packhorse bridges are thought to have been built between 1650 and 1800, but differences in design and fabric over

that period are haphazard, and do not follow a time-line. My solution to this problem, which is arguably even greater

for clapper bridges, is to include those specimens which might predate 1700 rather than to insist on clear pointers in

design or references to documents, as I usually do when considering the inclusion of larger river bridges. The isolation

of some small bridges makes it unlikely that I will visit them, but I have thought it worthwhile to include them for

8

completeness. Finally, I must mention another category of old bridge, namely those crossing moats and ditches, wet

or dry, associated with castles, mansions, farmhouses, religious establishments and other buildings. I have included

those on properties formally open to the public, and they mostly conform to the structural and stylistic patterns of their

build dates. However many are on private land, and access certainly cannot be guaranteed in such circumstances.

When I am able to visit such bridges, they have been and will be included after the event, but such are not amongst

my target population, of bridges not yet visited.

It is unarguable that almost every bridge surviving from before 1700 has been refurbished, or reconstructed to some

extent in modern times, and a few are almost unrecognisable as what they once were, from any viewing point. My

criterion for inclusion is that the bridge, even if much modified, must retain a sufficiency of as-built features to permit

an observer to form a mind picture of its original appearance. This is a subjective definition, but I have encountered

only a few cases where I have been left in doubt, though in those cases I have erred on the side of inclusion, but

made my reservations clear. For example, there are a few bridges of documented medieval origins, which retain no

visible fabric from that period, but which have arch forms and pier configurations which hark back to early origins. I

have discussed how my lists were developed before visiting many of the included bridges, and I have found that some

no longer exist, and that a few were clearly rebuilt long after 1700; I have culled most of them from this document.

I should say a little more about the information sheets. Photographs of the underside or soffits of bridges often yield

the most important clues to their ages and historical development; I present many more than have appeared

elsewhere, but here acknowledge that it has often been impossible to shine sufficient light into these shadowy regions

without saturating to a degree the image of other parts of the structure. In such cases, I normally include a photograph

which presents a better picture of the bridge as a whole in its setting. Wherever possible I provide dimensions, like

spans, carriageway widths, before and after widening exercises, and overall lengths; some of the measurements are

my own with tape and range-finder, many come from the referenced sources, but of course I take responsibility for all.

Other issues treated are accessibility and visibility. There have of course been great changes since Jervoise gathered

his information 80 odd years ago, as roads have become busier, trees have grown, and buildings have been erected.

He may have formally requested and been granted access to private property, as his task was semi-official, whereas I

have deliberately stuck to public paths and byways, except on a few occasions when a spontaneous casual enquiry or

invitation has allowed a better view to be obtained; my aim has been to act only as an interested member of the public

who does not hold much with trespass. As a result, it has sometimes been very difficult to find somewhere near-at-

hand to leave a car, to access the river bank to view either or both faces, and the underside, of a bridge, or to see

through and around bushes and trees. It is perhaps stating the obvious to point out that bridges may be best seen

during the winter months when obscuration by foliage is at a minimum, but unfortunately immediate access is likely to

be poor then with flooded paths and slippery banks. Inclement weather and bad road conditions might be another

issue then; perhaps the best compromise is provided by March and April.

The greatest frustration, other than failing to find a bridge altogether, which is a far from unknown experience, is to be

able to walk across a bridge but to be unable to get any sort of view of its structure, other than by looking over the

parapets. In such cases, I have been reduced to trawling the internet in the hope of finding a decent representation of

the bridge concerned, sometimes successfully thanks to the activities of canoeists, fishermen, and others. In this

context, I acknowledge here an omission in not yet referencing all the photographs I have used. I derive no pecuniary

advantage from the website, indeed it has cost me much to prepare, and it will increase the scale of the task

9

substantially to follow all such conventions. Nonetheless, I hope it will be accepted that the bridges item on the web-

site is still a work in progress, and that the issues of acknowledgement will be addressed, as indeed has been the

case for the other documents on the web-site. Of course, as some kind of quid pro quo, I am more than happy for

people to use anything in my survey as they choose, provided that they in turn do not derive pecuniary advantage, as

indicated by the terms of use of my website. I mention in the relevant fact sheets any specific difficulties I have

encountered in gathering information in order to spare others the aggravation and waste of time which I have

experienced. (In this context, it is unfortunate that responsible bodies, even those acting positively by providing

access, direction signs and information boards, rarely seem able to organise the cutting back of scrubby undergrowth

which all too often obstructs views of bridges.) I give details of roads carried and streams crossed in individual bridge

information sheets, and I have provided 8-symbol OS Locations for every bridge, including those I have not yet visited.

In this context, I would highly recommend the website Grid Reference Finder which gives instant access to OS and

Google Maps, and Post Codes, if the 8-symbol OS Location is entered. If I had discovered this invaluable tool earlier, I

would be much nearer to completion of this document, because some of my failures to find bridges would certainly

have been avoided. Other useful tools are the relevant OS Landranger map(s), and car satellite navigation systems,

though even with all such aids bridges can still prove elusive.

………………………

I shall end this introduction by considering briefly, in very general terms some of the engineering problems faced by

bridge builders. First, I will look at the obstacles which confronted them, namely the rivers which had to be crossed,

and I refer readers to the following tabulation, which lists lengths and discharge rates for most of the rivers mentioned

on the information sheets.

TABLE 1 River Lengths and Discharge Rates

River Comments

Mean

Discharge m³/s

90%

Discharge m³/s

Length miles River

Comments Mean

Discharge m³/s

90%

Discharge m³/s

Length miles

Almond SCOTLAND 6.2 14.2 28 Derwent Derbys 17.4 36.3 66 Ayr 16 42 40 Don Yorks 16 33 70

Clyde 48.2 112.3 106 Dove 14 28 45 Dee Aberdeen 47.2 95.1 87 Eden Cumbria 53.3 117 90 Devon 4.7 9.8 25 Exe 15.9 38.3 59

Don Aberdeen 21.2 41 80 Fowey 4.8 10.7 31 Doon 7.6 15.7 23 Frome 6.6 12.5 30 Eden Fife 4.1 8.2 29 Glen Lincs 1.2 2.8 18

South Esk Lothians 4.5 9.4 23 Gt. Ouse 15.7 33.7 143 Findhorn 19.7 43.6 65 Horner W. 0.46 1.05 7 Forth 47 113.8 29 Inney 2.9 6.6 20

Luce 6.2 16.8 17 Lea 5.5 8.5 42 Nairn 5.6 12.3 38 Lugg 10.9 26 45 Nith 27.9 67.9 71 Lune 36.2 88.5 44

Spey 65.9 124.2 107 Lynher 4.4 10.5 21 Tay With R. Earn 199.5 401.9 117 Medway 10.8 24.7 70 Tweed 82.1 179.6 96 Mersey 37.4 79.9 70

Tyne E. Lothian 3 6 30 Nidd 8 18.4 59 Urr 6 15.1 30 Piddle 2.4 4.8 18 Aire ENGLAND 34.8 78.2 71 Ribble 33.4 81.8 75

Avon Bristol 21.2 48.5 75 Rother Sussex 4.5 10.2 33 Avon Warwicks 17 40.8 96 Soar 11.9 25.5 59 Avon Hants 20.1 39 60 Stour Dorset 13.7 31.1 61

Bure 2.4 3.7 50 Swale 20.7 48 73 Calder 19.8 40.7 45 Tamar 22.3 55.1 61 Camel 6 13.2 30 Taw 18 47.2 45

Derwent Yorks 16.9 34.5 72 Tees 19.6 45.2 85

10

River Comments

Mean

Discharge m³/s

90%

Discharge m³/s

Length miles River

Comments Mean

Discharge m³/s

90%

Discharge m³/s

Length miles

Teme ENG. cont. 17.9 41.4 81 Wey 7.2 13.7 34 Thames 65.3 161 215 Wharfe 17 40.5 61

Torridge 15.5 39.3 48 Conwy WALES 19 46 34 Trent 89.2 179.8 185 Dee 33.8 89.4 70 Tyne Newcastle 46.2 104.2 73 Severn 106.5 255.6 220

Ure + Ouse 21.5 51.5 129 Teifi 29.2 66.9 75 Warlegan 0.83 1.72 8 Tywi 39.8 92.5 68 Wear 14.7 32.4 67 Usk 27.9 64.4 63

Welland 3.7 8.7 65 Wye 73 173 135 Wensum 4.1 7.5 44

I went to school at a time when pupils had to learn many facts, and one was the lengths of major British rivers; that

parameter was important historically in the context of transportation because it has a large bearing on the extent of the

obstruction a river creates. Usually its length bore a direct relation to the distance over which a river constituted a

significant barrier to medieval travellers. In the absence of a bridge, and with crossings by small boat usually

hazardous, a long river often imposed a substantial detour upstream to find a ford, except when the river was ‘running

low’. However we heard nothing much at school of discharge rate, which in the context of bridge building and survival

is probably at least as important an influence. The figures presented are the largest measured by the Department of

the Environment for the river concerned, so are normally those obtained at their furthest downstream metering station.

The normally-quoted unit of discharge rate, the ‘cumsec’ or m³/s is very large; 1 m³/s is the same as 13,245

gallons/minute, or the discharge of the contents of the largest road tanker in just less than three-quarters of a minute.

Britain’s biggest river, (as opposed to longest), the Tay thus disgorges, on average, the equivalent of 274 tanker-loads

of water each minute; (the Amazon, incredibly, 1000 times more!) Of course, most rivers increase their rates of flow as

tributaries join them, (though abstraction is a factor for rivers like the Thames) and it is sensible to think of the upper

reaches as seeing an increase towards ¹/₃ of the quoted flow rate, the middle reaches, a further doubling, and the

lower reaches, the attainment of the full discharge rate. The 90% figure in the table indicates the increase in discharge

rate anticipated when a river is running high, and invariably represents something like a doubling of the mean flow;

any bridge would be expected to cope easily with those conditions, either by dint of its height, or because flood arches

have been incorporated in the approaches. However, it was almost impossible for medieval bridge builders to provide

adequately for the most extreme flooding events, perhaps one or two a century, during which discharge rates might

more than double again, and Inglis is probably not unduly pessimistic in suggesting that few medieval masonry

bridges could have survived much more than a century without going through a cycle of collapse and partial

rebuilding. Indeed the records are peppered with instances of such events, involving the fall of one or more arches,

and on different occasions every bridge along some large rivers was either swept away or very severely damaged, a

fact which should give pause for thought to those who think that extreme weather events are necessarily on the

increase. As is obvious from this survey, masonry bridges on large rivers were not flimsy structure.

The impact of the ‘normal’ discharge rates on bridge design is obvious if it is considered that the quantity is obtained

as the product of width, depth and speed of flow. Fast flowing rivers like the Spey and the Lune have carved out well

defined deep and relatively narrow rocky channels, so single arches were usually viable in the upper reaches, and

their abutments could be fixed securely to rock. However multiple spans were necessary in the lower reaches and the

piers had to be made bulky and robust to withstand the drag forces on them, so the obstruction to the flow was

significant especially when the river was running high; this scenario dictated high bridges. Similar conditions were

11

found in all tidal reaches; sometimes the peak flows there owed much more to the sea during high tides, than the river

discharge rates. Most often the task of bridging estuaries was simply beyond the capabilities and purses of medieval

communities, especially where the passage of ships into major ports had to be allowed. Recourse was usually made

to boats, but their operation in estuarial waters was hazardous, as famously illustrated by the fate of King John’s

treasure, and fords subject to tides might be just as unsafe. The safest option was to trek miles inland, to cross the

river at the bridge nearest the sea, even if some days were added to the journey time. The relatively short lengths of

British rivers, compared with those on the continent, made this a viable if still frustrating option. Slow moving lowland

rivers like the Great Ouse and the Nene are wider than would be expected given the flows they carry, and often have

large flood plains in which pools and marshes are prevalent, so bridges crossing them had to be multi-span, and long

causeways were essential if the bridge itself was to remain accessible in anything other than dry low water conditions;

at least the problems arising from obstruction of the water flows and scouring around the piers were normally less. So,

the figures in the table, together with the information, usually obvious from the sketch maps, as to whether a bridge is

at the upper, middle, or lower part of a fast or slow flowing river, give some idea of the range of problems the bridge

builder was likely to have encountered, and should go some way to explaining the bridge configuration that the visitor

sees.

Whether a visitor sees an old bridge at a likely place, say between two river banks in an ancient town, or crossing a

river separating two such towns, is to some extent a matter of chance. Harrison addresses fundamental questions

concerning where, why and how bridges might have been built in medieval times, explaining that need was an obvious

determinant, so bridges carried important routes over large or treacherous rivers, but that they might appear only if

money enough could be raised, and organising capacity found, often in a nearby town or abbey. In circumstances of

lesser need or absent resources, the construction of a bridge was sometimes delayed until relatively modern times,

while small boats or fords filled the gap. In addition, it is only comparatively recently that it has become less than

prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to transport heavy building materials long distances, so if suitable stone

could not be quarried near to a proposed bridge site, the masonry option was usually ruled out. Although wood was

often a serviceable and economical alternative, such bridges were less robust, and their lives could normally be

measured in decades rather than centuries, so frequent rebuilding was inevitable; eventually if the need remained, a

stone bridge would arise, but this frequently did not happen until the 18th or 19

th century, especially it would seem in

the South of England. Even if built much earlier, a bridge would have had to survive diverse scenarios like floods, and

civil wars if it is to be seen today.

Just as modern roads and bridges are built to accommodate a minimum of two lanes of traffic, made up of cars, lorries

and buses, with usually some provision for cyclists and pedestrians, so the pre-modern bridge builder was most often

designing for carts, whether pulled by one or more horses or pushed by men. The idea that there was uniformity in the

wheelbase of carts from an early date is surely fanciful, just as is the attempt to trace the standard rail gauge of 4 feet

8½ inches back many centuries before George Stephenson lived, but the span of human arms, and the beam width of

a draft horse, suggest that a dimension around 1.5m (5 feet) may have become normal. It follows that a bridge width

of at least 2.5m would be necessary, if a cart was to be able to cross a bridge without continually bashing the parapets

as it moved over a rough track-way. Narrower bridges were built and it can be assumed that they were for pedestrians

and packhorses only, with low parapets a sign of consideration for the latter. The narrowest bridges mainly spanned

small streams in rural locations, often alongside fords which would have been used by carts and farm animals. Even

12

those wide enough just to accommodate a cart were most often found in such situations, because one-way traffic

generated too many delays even for pre-modern times, if a bridge was long, or a main artery in a large town. So the

greater river bridges were often between 3.5m and 5m wide, which just about allowed carts to pass, and they usually

had refuges above the cutwaters to allow pedestrians to avoid wheeled vehicles.

Nowadays, we expect to move onto bridges which more or less match the connecting roads in width, but before 1700,

what passed for important roads, were far wider than now, except in towns where the opposite was true; typically 60m

was kept clear of trees and other obstructions, to allow travellers to pick their way around ruts, pools and rocks on

totally unprepared surfaces. As in many other spheres, change began around 1700. Enclosure of land had

incentivised the narrowing of roadways to release land for cultivation, at least where the soil was fertile, and the

development of long-lasting smoother road surfaces using the methods of Macadam and Telford facilitated the

process. Nonetheless, the latter still allowed more than 8.5m of width on his London to Holyhead route to enable fast

moving stagecoaches, with wheelbases of around 1.5m, to pass each other. In the same period, bridge-widening

became common on important routes, especially those ‘Turnpiked’, since 5.5m was probably a minimum to allow

stagecoaches to pass, even at slow speed, on a smooth surface, if also constrained by parapets. Many other bridges

in towns and elsewhere were widened at this time, obviously to ease traffic flow, but perhaps also because

methodologies had been developed and such public works had acquired prestige. Unfortunately, adaptation was not

always seen as the answer and a number of historic bridges were pulled down and replaced, culminating in the

demise of Old London Bridge in 1831. In the years since then, the number of vehicles using the roads has increased

massively, but the majority are not very much wider than the carts and stagecoaches of earlier times; for example, my

previous car was 1.82m wide. However, buses and trucks are markedly wider (and longer and heavier) with legal

limits set between 2.55m and 2.75m, dependent on type. To allow a smooth flow of such vehicles, carriageways on

modern roads are normally at least 7m wide (for 2-way, single-lane traffic), and to avoid the creation of bottlenecks,

some old bridges have been altered accordingly, while many more have been bypassed. For those still in use,

changes in width, made in two, three, or even more stages over a period of centuries, can frequently be confirmed by

looking at the variations in the textures and colours of the soffits (the stonework beneath arches); the ingenuity of the

engineers is often displayed in such modifications, though sadly heritage and aesthetic considerations are sometimes

less in evidence. Not all old bridges have survived in the modern era of course, and not only because they have been

unable to cope with the size of lorries or the volume of traffic; sometimes entirely contrary factors have come into play

as patterns of movement have changed and routes have fallen into disuse. In such cases, two issues come into play.

Firstly, it has on occasion proved impossible to find the money to keep bridges in a safe condition, even for pedestrian

use. Secondly, all but single-arch bridges have piers which obstruct the water flow, and the older they are the wider

the piers and narrower the arches; in flood conditions the blockage is often increased by trees and other debris

washed downstream and if there is any tendency to flood it is increased by the presence of the bridge. In such

situations, bridges no longer performing the function for which they were built are indeed vulnerable. The brief account

of some of the issues which have affected bridges over the years can be amplified by referring to the book written by

Harrison, and another on roads written by Davies.

13

2. The Compendium of Bridges

Each old bridge has been assigned to one of the seven geographical divisions of Great Britain, listed below;

1. Scotland

2. The North of England

3. The Midlands of England

4. The South-East of England

5. The South of England and the Upper Thames Valley

6. The Far South-West of England

7. Wales and the English Marches

So far I have applied the new format only to the old bridges of Scotland, and these results now follow;

2.1 The Old Bridges of Scotland

The major change is the addition of two tabulations, which are intended to make it easier to compare and contrast

bridges in different areas, and of different ages, with regard to a range of characteristics. The first Table also provides

information as to the location of each bridge in its region; the latter are shown on a map which comes after. Following

on, is a smaller Table, No. 3, which provides the entry to the nested information sheets. They are accessed by clicking

on the relevant part of Scotland in the 1st column. The final item is a discussion of the information.

Table1 – Locations and Key Characteristics

Explanatory Notes - 1. Regions are as on the map 2. The red typescript means that the bridge has not yet been visited

3. Arch No., and Date, refer to the earliest surviving parts 4. ‘Catchment’ identifies the river system of which the stream crossed by

the bridge forms a part if it does not flow directly to the sea 5. Arch Span is the largest value for a multi-arch bridge and OW ≡

Original Width (metres); both refer to the earliest version still detectable, and are shaded according to whether they were important

bridges for towns or key routes, xxxx ; footbridges, of all types including packhorse and clapper bridges, xxxx ; or bridges over

moats and other artificial constructs, xxxx.

Bridge OS

Location Region River Catchment

Arch

No.

Arch

Span

O W (m) Date

Birsay Bridge HY 248 276 Orkney I. Boardhouse B. 2 17th C

Huna Mill Bridge ND 372 733 Highland Duncansby Burn 1 1651

Balgownie Bridge NJ 941 108 Grampian R. Don 1 22m 3.3 1320?

Bridge of Dee NJ 929 036 Grampian R. Dee 7 + 3? 14m c3.8 1527

Bridge of Dye NO 651 871 Grampian Water of Dye R. Dee 1 c15m 3.5 1680

Craigmin Bridge NJ 441 621 Grampian Letterfourie Burn B. of Buckie 2/1 11m 17thC?

Deer Abbey Bridge NJ 966 481 Grampian South Ugie W. R. Ugie 3 ? 3.0 1718

Elgin Bow Bridge NJ 204 632 Grampian R. Lossie 1 14m 3.5 1635

Glenlivet PH Bridge NJ 198 302 Grampian R. Livet R. Spey 2 16th C

14

Bridge OS

Location Region River Catchment

Arch

No.

Arch

Span

O W (m) Date

Hatton Bishop’s Bridge NK 072 367 Grampian Water of Cruden 1 ? 3.0 1697

Inglesmaldie Bridge NO 653 672 Grampian R. North Esk 3 15.7m 16th C

Old Keith Bridge NJ 428 508 Grampian R. Isla R. Deveron 1 1609

Ruthrieston Bridge NJ 929 039 Grampian 1693

Shevock PH Bridge NJ 592 289 Grampian The Shevock R. Don 1 17thC?

Alyth PH Bridge NO 245 498 Tayside Alyth Burn R. Tay 2 ? 1.4 1500

Brechin Bridge NO 604 593 Tayside R. South Esk 2 ? 15th C

Bridge of Margie NO 567 701 Tayside Burn of Margie R. N. Esk 1 ? 1647

Dollorie Bridge NN 907 209 Tayside Pow Burn R. Earn 1 ? c3.0 17th C

Lornty Bridge NO 171 476 Tayside Lornty Burn R.Tay 1 ? 2.3 16th C

Monzie Roman Bridge NN 878 251 Tayside Shaggie Burn R. Earn 1 ? 2.7 17thC?

Muthill Bishop’s Bridge NN 875 154 Tayside Machany Water R. Earn 2 ? c1.6 15th C

Old Bridge of Dean NO 287 470 Tayside Dean Water R. Tay 2 ? 2.7 17th C

Ruim PH Bridge NO 270 493 Tayside Quiech Burn R. Tay 2 ? 1.7 16th C

Rumbling Bridge NT 017 995 Tayside R. Devon R. Forth 1/1 6.6m 3.3 1713

Balgonie Bridge NO 317 004 Fife R. Leven 2 ? 17thC?

Ceres Bishop Bridge NO 400 114 Fife Ceres Burn R. Eden 1 8m 1.8 17th C

Dairsie Bridge NO 416 161 Fife R. Eden 3 8.1m 3.4 1538

Dunfermline Tower Br. NT 087 873 Fife Tower Burn Lyne Burn 1/1 ? 2.7 1611

Guardbridge Inner Br. NO 450 198 Fife Motray Water R. Eden 3 ? c2.2 16th C

Guardbridge Old Br. NO 451 189 Fife R.Eden 6 12m 3.75 1419

Kelty Bridge NT 139 953 Fife Kelty Burn R. Ore 1 ? c2.0 17thC?

Kirkwynd Bridge NO 575 049 Fife Kilrenny Burn 1 17th C

Newmills Old Bridge NT 012 865 Fife Bluther Burn 2 ? c3.5 16thC?

Peekie Bridge NO 560 126 Fife Kenly Water 1 9m 3.3 16th C

St Monans Clapper B. NO 523 015 Fife Inverie Burn 1 1.8m c1.1 15thC?

Swilken Bridge NO 502 170 Fife Swilken Burn 1 ? 2.0 17thC?

Annet Burn Bridge NN 714 034 Central Annet Burn R. Forth 1 7m 3.0 c1720

Spittal Bridge NS 808 904 Central Bannock Burn R. Forth 1 ? 3.6 16thC

Carron Bridge NS 739 835 Central R. Carron R. Forth 2 ? 3.3 1695?

Ochil Road Bridge NS 849 971 Central Menstrie Burn R. Forth 1 ? 1656

Old Leckie PH Br. NS 691 952 Central Leckie Burn R. Forth 1 3.3m 2.0 17th C

Stirling Bridge NS 797 946 Central R. Forth 4 16.8m 3.9 15th C

Teith Bridge NN 722 012 Central R. Teith R. Forth 2 ? 16thC?

Tullibody Old Bridge NS 847 951 Central R. Devon R. Forth 5 (3) 5.6m 3.5 16th C

Abbey Mill Bridge NT 533 745 Lothian R. Tyne 3 11.6m 4.8 16th C

Castle Gogar Bridge NT 167 729 Lothian Gogar Burn R. Almond 1 17th C

Cramond Old Bridge NT 180 755 Lothian R. Almond 3 11.6m 3.3 15th C

East Linton Bridge NT 592 771 Lothian R. Tyne 2 13.1m 3.2 16th C

Maidens Bridge NT 337 666 Lothian R. South Esk R. Esk 1 14.4m 4.0 15th C

Musselburgh Old Br. NT 341 725 Lothian R. Esk 3 15.5m 3.5 16th C

Newbattle Bridge NT 331 657 Lothian R. South Esk R. Esk 2 c10m 3.6 16th C

Nungate Bridge NT 519 738 Lothian R. Tyne 3 13.2m 4.4 16th C

Oldhamstocks Br. NT 747 703 Lothian Oldhamstocks B. Dunglass B. 1 ? 4.5 17th C

Pencaitland Bridge NT 442 690 Lothian Tyne Water R. Tyne 3 5.5m c2.5 1510

Rosslyn Castle Br. NT 275 628 Lothian NA 1 ? c4.0 15th C

Williamston Bridge NT 066 657 Lothian Murieston Burn R. Almond 1 ? >5.0 1647?

15

Bridge OS

Location Region River Catchment

Arch

No.

Arch

Span

O W (m) Date

Woodhall Dene Br. NT 679 728 Lothian Weatherley Burn Dry Burn 1 2.5m 2.1 18thC?

Blantyre Priory Br. NS 678 584 Strathclyde Rotten Calder W. R. Clyde 1 ? ? 17th C

Bothwell Bridge NS 710 578 Strathclyde R. Clyde 4 13.5m 3.5 17th C

Brig O’Doon NS 332 189 Strathclyde R. Doon 1 21.5m 2.0 15th C

Cathcart Old Bridge NS 585 601 Strathclyde White Cart Water R. Clyde 2 17.7m 3.0 1625?

Clydesholm Bridge NS 869 439 Strathclyde R. Clyde 3 18m 4.0 1699

Inverkip Bridge NS 223 725 Strathclyde Kip Water 1 ? 1.7 16th C

Meigle Bridge NS 196 658 Strathclyde Skelmorlie Water 1 ? ? 17th C

Mousemill Bridge NS 869 442 Strathclyde Mouse Water R. Clyde 1 c5m 3.0 1649

Old Avon Bridge NS 733 546 Strathclyde R. Avon R. Clyde 3 10.4m 3.1 16th C

Old Bridge of Ayr NS 339 232 Strathclyde R. Ayr 4 15.5m 3.5 15th C

Roberton Footbridge NS 944 286 Strathclyde Roberton Burn R. Clyde 1 6m 3.7 17th C

Dryburgh Abbey Bridge NT 593 316 Borders NA 1 c2m 1.8 15th C

Dunglass Old Bridge NT 773 723 Borders Dunglass Burn 2 ? 4.6 17th C

Innerleithen Old Bridge NT 333 371 Borders Leithen Water R. Tweed 1 ? c3.0 c1700

Jedburgh Canongate B. NT 653 210 Borders Jed Water R. Tweed 3 8.5m 2.9 16th C

Melrose Abbey Lade B. NT 548 342 Borders NA 1 <3m ? 15thC?

Old Lintmill Bridge NT 622 249 Borders Ale Water R. Tweed 3 ? <2.0 15th C

Old Manor Bridge NT 232 393 Borders Manor Water R. Tweed 1 ? 2.9 c1700

Peebles Tweed Bridge NT 250 403 Borders R. Tweed 5 12m 2.4 15th C

Stow Packhorse Bridge NT 459 446 Borders Gala Water R. Tweed 3 14m 2.0 1655

Bridge of Park NX 191 574 Dum. & Gal. Water of Luce 2 ? c3.0 16th C

Dumfries Bridge NX 969 761 Dum. & Gal. R. Nith 9 7.5m 3.9 15th C

Dundrennan Bridge NX 751 477 Dum. & Gal. Abbey Burn 1 5m 2.1 15th C

Langholm Skipper’s B. NY 371 834 Dum. & Gal. R. Esk 3 13.4m c4.0 1690s

Minnigaff Q. Mary’s B. NX 411 662 Dum. & Gal. Penkiln Burn R. Cree 2 ? ? 16th C

Old Bridge of Urr NX 776 677 Dum. & Gal. Water of Urr 2 7.5m 2.6 16th C?

Routin Bridge NX 886 580 Dum. & Gal. Old Water R. Nith 1 ? ? 17th C

Shennanton Bridge NX 343 632 Dum. & Gal. R. Bladnoch 3 ? c2.5 17thC?

The following Scottish Bridges have been removed from previous listings;

Ruthven Old Bridge in Tayside which has collapsed

Keithock PH Bridge which appears to be a late 18th century bridge

Cow Bridge in Lothian which has collapsed

Humbie Bridge in Lothian which appears to be a 19th century bridge

Cleghorn Bridge in Strathclyde which appears to be a 19th century bridge

Waterfoot Bridge in Strathclyde which appears to be a 19th century bridge

Ochiltree Burnock Burn Bridge in Strathclyde which has collapsed

Drumlanrig Bridge in Dumfries and Galloway which appears to be a 19th century bridge

In addition, a number of bridges considered for inclusion have been discarded, at least for now, mainly because they

are on private property and cannot be easily viewed from outside. Scottish laws are different in this regard from

elsewhere, but for consistency I have applied the same test everywhere.

16

Map showing the Regions used in Table 1

17

Table 2 – Bridge Characteristics

Column Identities;1. Fabric, i.e. build material; A ≡ Ashlar, CR ≡ Coursed Rubble, R ≡ Rubble, B ≡ Brick

2. Profile; F ≡ Flat, C ≡ Curved, P ≡ Peaked, H ≡ Humped 3. Total Number of Refuges on both Faces

4. Arch Form refers to 1 or more oldest arches; S-C ≡ Semi-circular, G ≡ Gothic (Pointed), 4-C ≡ 4-centred, 3-C ≡ 3-centred,

Se ≡ Segmental, T ≡ Triangular, R ≡ Rectangular

5. Arch Ring Features; Number/ whether Chamfered ≡ C, or Unchamfered ≡ U/ Arrangement, whether F ≡ Flush, H ≡ Below Hood

Mould, R ≡ Recessed, or in 2 or more orders (2O)/ Voussoirs, R ≡ Rough, S ≡ Shaped, D ≡ Dressed

6. Soffits and Ribs Features; Number of Ribs/ whether Chamfered ≡ C, or Unchamfered ≡ U

7. Ratio of Pier Width to Arch Span, either qualitative, B ≡ Broad, S ≡ Slender, U ≡ Unexceptional or ratio; also Causeway ≡ C

8. Parapets Features; None, Low, or R ≡ Hand Rail

9. <--> W; Widened? No, B ≡ Both Faces, U ≡ Upstream Face, D ≡ Downstream Face 10. Date, as previously, earliest survivals

As previously, the red typescript means that a bridge has not been visited, and no information, apart from an estimate of the date of

build is given.

I have shaded those bridges with one or more Gothic/pointed arches; xxxx, chamfered arch rings, xxxx, and chamfered ribs, xxxx.

Bridge Fabric Profile No. of Refuges

Arch Form

Arch Ring Features

Soffits & Ribs Features

Pier Width

Parapet Features

˂--˃ W

Date

Birsay Bridge 17th C

Huna Mill Bridge 1651

Balgownie Bridge R F NA G 1/C/H/D 0 NA - No 1320?

Bridge of Dee CR F 12 Se 2/C/2O/D 5 (+4)C U - B 1527

Bridge of Dye R P NA S-C 2/U/F/D 4C NA - No 1680

Craigmin Bridge R P 0 Se 1/U/R/D 0 B - No 17thC?

Deer Abbey B. CR F 0 S-C 1/U/F/S 0 U - No 1718

Elgin Bow Bridge CR F NA Se 1/U/F/S 0 NA - No 1635

Glenlivet PH B. 16th C

Hatton Bishop’s B. R F NA Se 1/U/F/D 0 NA - No 1697

Inglesmaldie B. R F 0 Se 1/U/F/D 5C U - B 16th C

Old Keith Bridge 1609

Ruthrieston Bridge 1693

Shevock PH B. 17thC?

Alyth PH Bridge R F 0 Se 1/U/F/S 0 U - No 1500

Brechin Bridge R F 2 G 1/U/F/S 0 - U 15th C

Bridge of Margie R F NA S-C 1/U/F/S 0 NA - U? 1647

Dollorie Bridge R F NA S-C 1/U/F/S 0 NA - D 17th C

Lornty Bridge R F NA S-C 1/U/F/R 0 NA Rails U 16th C

Monzie Roman B. R H NA S-C 1/U/F/S 0 NA None No 17thC?

Muthill Bishops B. R F 0 S-C 1/U/F/S 0 C - B 15th C

Old Bridge of Dean R F 2 S-C 1/U/F/D 0 B - No 17th C

Ruim PH Bridge CR H 0 S-C 1/U/F/S 0 C None No 16th C

Rumbling Bridge A H NA S-C 1/U/F/D 0 NA None No 1713

Balgonie Bridge CR/A F 0 Se 1/U/F/D 0 U - U 17thC?

Ceres Bishop B. R P NA Se 2/C/2O/D 0 NA - No 17th C

Dairsie Bridge CR F 0 G 2/C/2O/D 4C U - No 1538

Dunfermline Tower B. CR/A F NA S-C 2/U/2O/D 2U NA None U 1611

Guardbridge Inner CR F 0 Se 1/U/F/D 0 1XB Rails B 16th C

Guardbridge Old B. CR/A F 7 S-C 1/U/F/D 0 H - No 1419

Kelty Bridge A H NA S-C 1/U/F/D 0 NA - B? 17thC?

18

Bridge Fabric Profile No. of

Refuges

Arch

Form

Arch Ring

Features

Soffits & Ribs

Features

Pier

Width

Parapet

Features

˂--˃

W

Date

Kirkwynd Bridge 17th C

Newmills Old Bridge A F 0 G/S-C 2/U/2O/D 2U C None ? 16thC?

Peekie Bridge CR P NA S-C 1/C/F/D 0 NA - No 16th C

St Monans Bridge - - - R - - - - No 15thC?

Swilken Bridge R H NA Se 1/U/F/R 0 NA Low No 17thC?

Annet Burn Bridge R F NA Se 1/U/F/S 0 NA - No c1720

Spittal Bridge CR F NA Se 1/C/F/D 0 NA - U 16thC

Carron Bridge CR F 0 Se 1/U/H/D 0 H - No 1695?

Ochil Road Bridge R H NA Se 1/U/F/S 0 NA - U? 1656

Old Leckie PH Br. R P NA S-C 1/U/F/D 0 NA - No 17th C

Stirling Bridge CR C 2 S-C 2/C/2O/D 0 U - No 15th C

Teith Bridge R F 0 S-C 1/U/F/D 0 U - U 16thC?

Tullibody Old Bridge CR P 0 G 3/C/3O/D 4C H - No 16th C

Abbey Mill Bridge CR F 0 G 2/C/2O/D 5C U - No 16th C

Castle Gogar Bridge 17th C

Cramond Old B. CR F 0 G 3/C/3O/D 4C & 0 U - No 15th C

East Linton Bridge CR F 0 Se 1/C/F/D 4C U - B 16th C

Maidens Bridge CR P NA Se 1/C/H/D 3U rounded NA - No 15th C

Musselburgh Old B. CR F 2 Se 1/U/H/D 0 B - No 16th C

Newbattle Bridge CR/A C 2 G 1/U/H/D 0 U - No 16th C

Nungate Bridge CR C 0 Se 1/U/H/D 0 U - No 16th C

Oldhamstocks Br. R F NA S-C 1/U/F/D 0 NA - No? 17th C

Pencaitland Bridge CR F 0 G 2/C/2O/D 3C +2U C - U? 1510

Rosslyn Castle Br.** R F NA Se 1/U/F/S 0 NA - No 15th C

Williamston Bridge CR F NA Se 1/U/H/D 0 NA - No 1647?

Woodhall Dene Br. R F NA S-C 1/U/F/D 0, v. loose NA - No 18thC?

Blantyre Priory Br. CR F NA S-C 1/U/F/D 0 NA R ? 17th C

Bothwell Bridge A C -> F 0 Se 2/C/2O/D 4C B R U 17th C

Brig O’Doon R H NA Se 1/U/H/D 0 NA - No 15th C

Cathcart Old Bridge CR C 0 S-C 1/U/F/S 0 C - No 1625?

Clydesholm Bridge CR F 4 S-C 1/U/F/D 0 U R No 1699

Inverkip Bridge R P NA S-C 1/U/F/D 0 NA Low No 16th C

Meigle Bridge CR F NA Se 1/U/F/D 0 NA R D 17th C

Mousemill Bridge R H NA Se 1/U/H/D 0 NA None No 1649

Old Avon Bridge A F 0 Se 2/U/2O/D 3U B - No 16th C

Old Bridge of Ayr CR C 0 G 1/U/H/D 0 U - No 15th C

Roberton Footbridge R F NA Se 1/U/R/S 0 NA - No 17th C

Dryburgh Abbey B. ** CR F NA G 1/U/F/D Yes NA None B 16th C

Dunglass Old B. R F 0 S-C 1/U/F/S 0 C - No 17th C

Innerleithen Old B. R P NA Se 1/U/F/R 0 U - No c1700

Jedburgh Canongate B. CR C 4 Se 2/C/2O/D 4C B - No 16th C

Melrose Abbey Lade B. R F NA G&Se 1/U/F/R ? NA None ? 15thC?

Old Lintmill Bridge R P 0 Se 1/U/F/S 0 U - U 15th C

Old Manor Bridge R P NA Se 1/U/F/D 0 NA - No c1700

Peebles Tweed Bridge R F 0 Se 1/U/F/D 0 H - B 15th C

Stow Packhorse B. R H 0 Se 1/U/F/R 0 C None U 1655

Bridge of Park CR/A F 0 S-C 2/U/20/D Yes U - D 16th C

19

Bridge Fabric Profile No. of

Refuges

Arch

Form

Arch Ring

Features

Soffits & Ribs

Features

Pier

Width

Parapet

Features

˂--˃

W

Date

Dumfries Bridge CR F 2 G 1/C/F/D 0 B - No 15th C

Dundrennan Bridge R C NA Se 2/C/2O/D 2C NA - U 15th C

Langholm Skipper’s B. CR F 0 Se 1/U/F/S 0 U - U 1690s

Minnigaff Q. Mary’s B. R F 0 S-C 1/U/F/R 0 C - No 16th C

Old Bridge of Urr R F 0 S-C 1/U/F/S 0 U - U 16th C

Routin Bridge R F NA Se 1/U/F/R 0 NA - B? 17th C

Shennanton Bridge CR F 0 Se 1/U/F/S 0, v. loose B Low No 17thC?

Table 3. Access to Information Sheets & Status of Bridge Visits

KEY TO INFORMATION SHEETS SCOTTISH REGION No. OF BRIDGES No. VISITED PRE-1600 PRE- 1500

SCOTLAND - NORTH Orkney 1 0 0

Highland 1 0 0

Grampian 12 8 4 1

Tayside 10 10 5 3

SCOTLAND - CENTRAL Fife 12 11 6 2

Central 8 8 4 1

SCOTLAND - SOUTH-EAST Lothian 13 12 9 3

Borders 9 9 6 3

SCOTLAND - SOUTH-WEST Strathclyde 11 11 4 2

Dum. & Gal. 8 8 5 2

TOTALS 85 77 43 17

Discussion

1. There are 85 Scottish bridges incorporating substantial elements, e.g., one or more arches, which were most probably

built before 1700, of which I had visited 77, (91%) by early November 2015. Of the total, 42 are thought most likely to

date from after 1600, 26 from the 16th century, 16 from the 15

th century, but there is only one for which a reasonable

case can be made for an earlier build-date (ignoring the purported but invisible clapper bridge at the foot of the gorge

at Rumbling Bridge), namely, Balgownie Bridge, though even it seems ahead of its time to an extent which has cast

doubt on documentary evidence. Unfortunately, some of the other date estimates also carry considerable uncertainty,

most likely erring towards over-estimating age, as indicated in the respective data sheets. I suspect also that there

remain a few bridges meeting my criteria which I have not yet identified. To give an idea of the impact of these factors,

though what follows is at best an educated guess; the number of masonry bridges, with substantial visible elements

pre-dating 1700 in Scotland probably lies between 75 and 90, the corresponding numbers for pre-1600 may be 38 and

45, and for pre-1500 between 14 and 20.

2. As to the locations of these bridges, none is to be found much west of the imaginary Highland Line running from

Stirling to Aberdeen, or south and west of extensions, inland of the Moray Firth, up to the northern-most coast; the

20

highland hinterland received its first masonry bridges in the early 18th century under the direction of the soldiers, Wade

and Caulfield. Within this general distribution there are some obvious clusters, especially in east Fife and East

Lothian, and more widely spread, in Tayside, which may be linked with important religious establishments. Otherwise,

most important medieval towns stood on river-banks, and had bridges from quite an early date (14th/15

th century?),

with Aberdeen the best example now, even if, as in the case of Perth, it proved impossible to maintain them against

the forces exerted by rivers in spate, until after 1700. Of course, some of the earliest bridges were built of wood,

rendering them vulnerable whenever rivers ran in spate.

3. As regards the fabric of Scottish masonry bridges, it is striking that with the exception of the voussoirs which were

usually dressed, practically all built before 1700 are of rubble, with only 5 out of the 77 visited being ashlar, though a

few others have patches of such construction. Of the rubble bridges, a small majority are of material randomly sized

and distributed, rather than coursed and roughly shaped, but of the older pre-1600 group, the bias is the other way.

With regard to location there is some bias towards random rubble in the north, but these effects are insufficiently

strong to constitute a pattern.

4. In one regard the form of the arch is an important age marker, because all 13 bridges with a Gothic (or pointed)

arch shape are thought to have been built prior to 1600, though this of course leaves 29 in that age category with no

such arches. So, we are dealing with a sufficient rather than necessary condition. No Scottish bridge was built in the

period prior to 1300 when the Norman semi-circular arch predominated, but 26 of the bridges have arches which are

best described as of that form, distributed fairly uniformly over the range of build-dates after 1400, and by locality.

There are no 3-centred or 4-centred arches, excepting possibly a single arch of the Old Brig of Ayr.

5. Some authorities regard the span of arches and the breadth of piers as important markers of the age of a bridge, at

least as regards larger multi-arch bridges. The argument is that as experience and confidence increased, bridge

builders dared to increase spans and construct more slender piers, perhaps employing 3 arches where earlier their

predecessors would have used 4. Amongst the benefits would have been a saving in building material, and less

obstruction to the river flow. The latter meant less scouring of the pier foundations under all conditions and that when

the river was in flood, it would back up less upstream, reducing the dangerous sideways force on the bridge.

Unfortunately, the Scottish bridges taken together do not really support this theory, and not just because the largest

span is found on the probable oldest bridge at Balgownie. The data is rather sparse, but I have used what I possess to

compare average greatest arch-spans for multi-arch bridges with the following result; pre-1500, 13.1m; 1500 – 1600,

12.5m; 1600 – 1700, 15m. The results are inconclusive, though it may be that with larger samples of such bridges in

other parts of the country, a clearer pattern will emerge, which also might apply to an extent to Scotland.

6. Another bridge dimension which might have proved significant as a marker of age, or less likely, of location, is the

width of the carriageway. By this measure there are indeed two main classes of bridge, which are best named

footbridges and cart bridges. The former were built less than 2.2m wide, include so-called packhorse bridges, and

clapper bridges, and usually cross small streams rather than large rivers; cart bridges had widths mainly in the range 3

to 4m in width, though there were outliers increasing the range to 2.5 to 4.5m. Remembering that medieval carts and

horse-drawn coaches were around 1.5m wide, it is clear that 2-way traffic was at best difficult and at worst impossible

21

on such bridges. Although a number had refuges which could accommodate pedestrians, these were often too small

for carts, never mind coaches. It is quite clear that during the four centuries of bridge building covered by this

document there was no systematic movement towards wider bridges in Scotland, nor was any region characterised by

wider bridges than the others.

7. It is appropriate to consider arch rings and ribs together, and these features as with arch form seem to characterise

many of the oldest Scottish bridges. As regards arch rings, the marker is chamfering of the lower edge, i.e., tapering

or rounding the corners; there are 17 Scottish bridges exhibiting this feature and all but two, the enigmatic Bothwell

Bridge, and Ceres Bridge are pre-1600 builds. This is not the place to discuss the motivation for incorporating ribs

beneath the soffits of bridges, but again the feature linked to greater age seems to be chamfering, at least on outward

facing surfaces. 12 pre-1700 bridges have this feature, and 10 of them are thought to be pre-1600, with Bothwell

Bridge (again) and Bridge of Dye, the exceptions. In both cases we are in the realm of sufficient rather than necessary

conditions. In all there are 26 bridges which display one or more of the three features (Gothic arches, and chamfering

of either arch rings or ribs), and of them, 23 date from before 1600, and only 3 from later. However, that still leaves

almost as many ‘pre-1600’ bridges, which show none of these features. There is a danger of using rather circular

arguments, insofar as the identified physical markers have usually played a part in assigning the accepted build-dates,

which are then stated to be characterised by them. However, there is also a significant amount of written evidence for

many of the quoted dates, whether on paper or bridge plaques, which is consistent with the interpretation I have

placed on these features as date markers.

8. I am sure there is more to be gleaned from the information presented in Tables 1 and 2, especially if I can fill in

some of the gaps. In particular, as I put the information for other parts of the British Isles into the same format, I am

sure that differences, commonalities, and trends will become clear.

2.2 The Old Bridges of the North of England

22

3. Glossary of some frequently used terms

The useful diagram below is taken from Yorke’s book, though it portrays a modern masonry bridge, the terminology

applies generally to stone bridges. I strongly recommend the Penguin Dictionary of Architecture, as a more

comprehensive source of information about relevant terms than I can provide.

Some other relevant descriptors are not in the diagram.

Arch, 3-centred (Tudor)

and 4-centred

An arch shape made up of intersecting arcs of different radius, usually dated to the late-

15th century or after

Arch, Gothic Pointed arch shape, most often made up of two intersecting arcs of a circle, rather than

triangular

Arch, Segmental An arch shape which is a simple arc of a circle, not extending to a full semi-circle, often

shallow and a sign of relative modernity

Arch, Semi-circular Self-explanatory, often a sign of great antiquity

Arch Rings Comprise the voussoirs, but can be doubled or tripled in layers for decorative purposes,

and the lower ones can be recessed, or mounted ‘in two or three orders’

Architrave Also soffits, the under-surface of an arch

Ashlar Masonry-type, stone blocks cut to uniform size, smoothed and laid in regular courses

Chamfering Applied most often to ribs and arch rings, the removal of corners for decorative purposes,

often a marker for a medieval bridge

Clapper Bridge A bridge comprising one or more flat slabs laid across the tops of abutments and often

one or more piers forming rectangular water channel(s), usually without parapets but

sometimes with hand rails

Flood Arch An arch designed to accommodate flood water only, often in an approach causeway

23

Hood Mould A protruding layer of thin stones immediately above, and following the full shape of an

arch ring

Impost Ledge on a pillar or abutment from which an arch springs

Packhorse Bridge A bridge which is on a pre-19th century route, and too narrow for carts to cross (< 1.5m)

Pilasters Shown in the diagram, but not labelled, they are mini-columns often rising above the

cutwaters

Refuges Outward protrusions in the parapets, enclosing side extensions of the carriageway,

usually triangular or rectangular, and most often upward extensions of the cutwaters

Ribs Common in the soffits of larger medieval bridges they protrude downwards, but follow the

arch shape, and can be the main support members

Rise Can refer to the height of a single arch above the impost, or the increase in height of a

whole bridge between the ends and centre. Where this is significant, the bridge is termed

‘crowned’ or ‘humped’

River Arch An arch spanning a water course

Rubble Masonry type made up of individual stones or blocks which are non-uniform, but can

range from regular layers of roughly squared blocks to completely random arrangements

of stones varying in size and shape

Stilted Refers to a bridge in which arches spring from high above the water level

String Course A horizontal row of protruding tiles or thin stones, found above an arch, for purely

decorative purposes

24

4. References and Bibliography

Such is the importance to any student of English and Welsh old bridges of the five books produced by Jervoise, one,

utilising information collected by Henderson, and a sixth on Cornish Bridges written by the latter, that I begin my listing

with them, and then revert to the normal alphabetical ordering by author’s name. There is an eclectic mix of books

dealing generally with the subject, some dealing with bridges in a county or along a river, and some dealing with single

bridges. There are many books which follow the course of a river, and at least mention old bridges crossing it, but they

rarely contribute much detail, so I have omitted them. There is an excellent series of regional books on the Civil

Engineering Heritage which have useful entries on bridges amongst much else, but I do not make specific references

to them as they mainly carry information obtainable elsewhere. I include a number of web sites which I have found

useful, and would highlight especially those for Listed Buildings, PastScape and Scotland’s Oldest Bridges.

The Ancient Bridges of Mid

and Eastern England

Jervoise E. 1932 The Architectural Press Everything else published since on the

topic owes a large debt to these

books, though the absence of maps,

the poor quality of the photographs

and the quirky nature of the

information presented, mean that they

do not represent a last word. Also, they

date back 80+ years.

The Ancient Bridges of Wales

& Western England

Jervoise E. 1976 EP Publishing Ltd

The Ancient Bridges of the

North of England

Jervoise E. 1973 EP Publishing Ltd

The Ancient Bridges of the

South of England

Jervoise E. 1930 The Architectural Press

Old Devon Bridges Henderson

C, &

Jervoise E.

1938 A. Wheaton & Co. I often refer to Jervoise on information

sheets because he actually wrote the

book.

Old Cornish Bridges &

Streams

Henderson

C. & Coates

H.

1972 D. Bradford Barton

Bridgend Bridge, Dundrennan

– A Monastic Structure

Anderson A. & Williams J.

2007 Learned Paper, Dumfries and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society

Historic Bridges of Shropshire Blackwall A. 1985 Shropshire Libraries The first chapter is relevant

The Bridges of Wales Breese G. 2001 Gwasg Carreg Gwalch The book often reads like a critique of

Jervoise, but there is useful

information, even if it is hard to get at.

The Exe Bridge, Exeter Brown S. 2010 Exeter City Council Informative, good photographs

Bridges of the River Wear Cockerill K. 2005 The People's History, Ltd. Describes all river bridges, including

the medieval ones.

25

Medieval Bridges Cook M. 1998 Shire Excellent summary

Bridges on the River Wye Crow A. 1995 Lapridge Publications Descriptions and photographs of over 70 bridges, workmanlike

Bridges of Breconshire Davies D. 1992 Cambrian Printers Interesting details

From Trackways to

Motorways

Davies H 2006 Tempus Sets bridges in context

The River Bridges of

Northumberland, 3 booklets

Dickens T

1975

-

1981

Various

Describes the few medieval bridges on

the Rivers Coquet, Aln and Till

Bridges in Hampshire of

Historic Interest

Grayling B. 2000 Hampshire County Council Shows the few pre-1700 bridges in Hampshire and many others

The Bridges of Medieval

England

Harrison D. 2004 Oxford University Press Scholarly, very informative, not afraid

to theorise

An illustrated Guide to the

Packhorse Bridges of the

Lake District

Hartwell M. 1994 Ernest Press Good sketches of 21 bridges, and access information, little detail about the bridges

Swarkeston Bridge and the

Stanton Causeway

Heath G.R. 1994 Footprint Press Ltd. Clear history

A Guide to the Packhorse

Bridges of England

Hinchcliffe E. 1994 Cicerone Press Describes and locates 190 bridges, not all packhorse; unclear how complete the sample is.

Excavation of a Medieval

Bridge at Waltham Abbey,

Essex in 1968

Huggins P.J. Learned Paper, Medieval Archaeol 14, 1970 (1971) 126-47

The Ancient Bridges of

Scotland and Their Relation to

the Roman and Medieval

Bridges of Europe.

Inglis H.R.G. 1912 Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Learned Paper

Interesting general survey in introduction.

The Roads and Bridges in the

Early History of Scotland

Inglis H.R.G. 1913 Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Learned Paper

Pioneering collection of information and analysis

The Most Ancient Bridges in

Britain

Inglis H.R.G. 1915 Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Learned Paper

Extends analysis from Scotland to Northern England

Cornwall's Bridges & Viaducts

Heritage

Kentley E. Twelveheads Press Adds little to Henderson save some

better photographs but a very nicely

produced booklet

The Bridges of Britain Maré E. de 1954 Batsford The best 'popular' account I have read,

by a margin, though the author is

unashamedly more interested in

bridges post-1700

Jaggermen’s Bridges on

Packhorse Trails

McEwen C. 2008 Sledgehammer Engineering Press

Accounts of over 70 Packhorse Bridges in the North of England. Good B/W photographs, chatty accounts but few measurements or structural details. A really nice book

An Encyclopaedia of British McFetrich D. 2010 Priory Ash Publishing Should be a ‘must have’ for anyone seriously interested; individual

26

Bridges accounts of 1650 bridges and much else

Discover Dorset - Bridges McFetrich D.

& Parsons J.

1998 The Dovecot Press Good general descriptions and

photographs of medieval bridges in

Dorset

Ditchford Bridge, Irchester,

Northamptonshire

McKeague P.

1988/1989

Learned Paper, Northamptonshire Archaeology 22

Discovering Bridges Metcalfe L. 1970 Shire Much information packed into a small

space

The Brig of Ayr and

Something of Its Story

Morris J. A. 1912 Stephen & Pollock Focus on 18th and 19

th century history

Some Yorkshire Bridges of

Beauty and Romance

Patchett

A.N.

1992 The Pentland Press Idiosyncratic, but informative,

describes a good proportion of

Yorkshire medieval bridges

A Heritage of Bridges between

Edinburgh, Kelso & Berwick

Paxton R. & Ruddock T.

The Institution of Civil Engineers

Informative, but mainly chooses better known bridges

Cam Bridges Pierpoint R.J.

1976 The Oleander Press of Cambridge

Interesting, even if bridges are post-1700

Fords, Ferries, Floats and

Bridges near Lanark

Reid T. 1913 Learned Paper obtained from Internet

Eccentric, but informative

The River Wey Bridges

between Farnham and

Guildford

Renn D.F. Learned Paper reprinted from Research Volume of the Surrey Archaeological Society

Good detailed engineering account of unique set of medieval bridges

Clopton Bridge Ribbans M. 2005 RFP Comprehensive account of famous Stratford-upon-Avon bridge.

Bridges of Bedfordshire Simco A. &

McKeague

P.

1997 Bedfordshire County Council Engineering detail of historic bridges

on the River Great Ouse

Monnow Bridge and Gate Rowlands M. L. J.

1994

The Bridges of Lancashire

and Yorkshire

Slack M. 1986 Derek Doyle & Associates Informative, if by no means

comprehensive, a good snapshot

The Clapper Bridges of

Dartmoor and Some Myths

and Tall Tales of the Moor

Stuart J. Orchard Publications Excellent pictures, not over-informative

Dorset Bridges - A History and

Guide

Wallis A.J. 1974 The Abbey Press, Sherborne Unusually, written by bridge

maintenance engineer, and includes

good descriptions

Moulton Packhorse Bridge Watkins A.A. 1932 Learned Paper, PDF Suffolk Institute

Some useful general and local information

The Long Bridge of Bideford

through the Centuries

Whiting F. E. & Christie P.

2006 Lazarus Press

The Town Gates and Bridges

of Medieval Leicester

Wilshere J. 1982 Chamberlain Music & Books Unfortunately none of those dealt with have survived

A Century of Bridges An

Illustrated Guide to all the

Bridges that Cross the Severn

Witts C. 1998 River Severn Publications Sketches and brief notes on all, though only one, at Bridgnorth falls tenuously into my domain

27

Crossing Places of the Upper

Thames A History and Guide

Woolacott A. 2008 Tempus Idiosyncratic, but informative, some important bridges not photographed

Bridges of Britain, A Pictorial

Survey

Wright G.N. 1973 D. Bradford Barton Ltd. Excellent photographs

The Bridges of Wiveton Wright J 2001 Learned Paper, PDF from The Glaven Historian

Much about an important Norfolk bridge

Bridges Explained Yorke T. 2008 Countryside Books Principles underlying the construction

of masonry bridges simply explained

Amongst relevant web sites are;

www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk Indispensable but not infallible, and the names by

which bridges are known are sometimes a puzzle

http://www.pastscape.org.uk/default.aspx English Heritage site

www.transportheritage.com Brief accounts of many old bridges

www.engineering-timelines.com Similar entries to above

www.scotlandsoldestbridges.co.uk Indispensable, information on the majority of old

bridges in Scotland

http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/ Official Scottish buildings site

http://www.oldroadsofscotland.com/index.html Places some old Scottish bridges in context

www.british-history.ac.uk

Variable, with not all areas covered, and some

county authors seeming less interested in bridges,

but some excellent accounts and pictures

www.somersetrivers.org Every bridge in county

www.bridgesonthetyne.co.uk Most on main rivers in England north of Tees

www.ceh.ac.uk/index.html

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, river discharge

rates

www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/thelakes/html/topics/bridgef.htm

Every bridge in Cumbria, locations, dates and

relevant Listed Building entries.

http://www.rotherbridge.org.uk/article.htm Discusses bridges on the Western Rother in Sussex

http://www.coflein.gov.uk/ Official Welsh buildings site

http://www.riverchew.co.uk/index.htm A river near Bath with a number of old bridges

http://wantage-museum.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Medieval-Bridges-in-Oxfordshire.pdf

Useful listing of Medieval bridges in Oxfordshire

http://www.glen-johnson.co.uk/cardigan-bridge/ Informative History of Cardigan Bridge

28