Some Steps in the Evolution of Early Iron Arched Bridge Designs

REFERENCES

• J. G. James, Overseas Railways and the Spread of Iron Bridges c.1850-70, (privately published, 1987). This was originally intended as Part 2 of "The Origins and World-Wide Spread of Warren-truss Bridges in the mid-Nineteenth Century", Part 1 of which appeared in History of Technology, Vol. 11 (1986), pp. 65–123.
   Google Scholar
• N. Cossons and B. Trinder, The Iron Bridge (Bradford-on-Avon, 1979), pp. 1–66 is the best account.
   Google Scholar
• D. Northcliffe, "A Preliminary Report on the Kirklees Iron Bridge of 1769 and its Builder", Yorkshire Archaeological Society Paper (1979). Reprinted in Industrial Past (Spring 1980), pp. 14–17.
   Google Scholar
• For example, J. Britton and E. W. Brayley, Devonshire (1803) pp. 171–172, noted that 5 ton anchors made at Plymouth Dockyard (where the smiths had to be given extra strong beer in the process) cost £550. By 1830, improved handling had reduced this to £300.
   Google Scholar
• J. G. James, " Iron Arched Bridge Designs in Pre-revolutionary France", History of Technology, Vol. 4 (1979) pp. 63–99. B. Lemoine, "L'origine des Ponts Métalliques en France". Annales Ponts et Chaussées, No. 19 (1981), pp. 44–52. Aubry's 300 ft design is reproduced in reference 10.
   Google Scholar
• Matters were not helped by the eminent theorist Coulomb, who refused to believe in buckling. He stated that the strength of columns depended on cross-sectional area alone and declared that masonry columns a quarter of a mile high were quite feasible. C. S. Gillmor, Coulomb and the Evolution of Physics and Engineering in 18th Century France (Princeton, 1971), p. 100.
   Google Scholar
• The small wrought-iron bridges have mostly been discussed in J. G. James, "Russian Iron Bridges to 1850", Transactions of the Newcomen Society, Vol. 54 (1982–83), pp. 79–104.
   Google Scholar
• The author's thanks are due to R. W. Rennison for discovering the Alnwick bridge and providing slides and notes, and to the Duke of Northumberland for access to two bridge drawings in the archives of Syon House. Both of the latter appear to be unused single-span designs for the existing three-span bridge at Syon. One (unsigned and undated) is 70 ft long with arched wrought-iron brackets (21/2 in square bar) supporting iron longitudinal deck beams 4 in x 21/2 in. The other (signed James Wyatt, 1790) is 80 ft long with similar brackets, but supports timber longitudinal deck beams 12 in deep.
   Google Scholar
• J. G. James, "The Evolution of Iron Bridge Trusses to 1850", Transactions of the Newcomen Society, Vol. 52 (1980–81), pp. 67–101.
   Google Scholar
• J. G. James, "The Cast-iron Bridge at Sunderland", Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic Occasional Papers, History of Science and Technology (1986), No. 5.
   Google Scholar
• H. S. Torrens and B. Trinder, "The Iron Bridge at Trentham Park". Industrial Arch. Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, (1981–82), pp. 46–55. The authors note that an early tender (1793) was to a design from J. Walker—presumably Joshua Walker of the Rotherham firm—but the Coalbrookdale Company offered their own highly decorative designs which, although more expensive, were preferred.
   Google Scholar
• Bridgwater Bridge bore the legend 'Cast Anno 1795 Coalbrookdale' on the ribs but it was not until 8 July 1797 that Thomas Gregory published his print and local newspapers did not report completion until October 1798. The author's thanks are due to P. J. Squibbs (Bridgwater Victorian Days, Bridgwater, 1957) for several 1860–80 photographs of the old bridge. It seems likely that all the in-house designs for late 18th century Coalbrookdale bridges came from Gregory. According to Dr Raistrick (in a letter to Professor A. W. Skempton) there exists a note in Francis Darby's hand, stating that the original iron bridge was designed and cast by Abraham Darby and his foreman moulder Gregory; Gregory made a well-known model of it in 1785. Unfortunately the various Trentham Park bridge designs were unsigned although one was endorsed by William Reynolds to indicate his personal preference.
   Google Scholar
• For example, B. Baker, Discussion in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 92 (1888), pp. 196–197.
   Google Scholar
• Nash's patent drawings, undimensioned, show seven boxes per rib which would make them about 14 ft long if they relate to Stanford. However, they are shown of uniform depth, whereas photographs of the bridge show that depth increased from haunch to crown.
   Google Scholar
• R. Fulton, A Treatise on the Improvement of Canal Navigation . . . with Thoughts on, and Designs for Aqueducts and Bridges of Iron and Wood (London, 1796), Plate 10.
   Google Scholar
• The bridges are described and listed in reference 7.
   Google Scholar
• B. Trinder, "Coalport Bridge", Industrial Arch. Review, Vol. 3 (1979), pp. 153–157.
   Google Scholar
• J. U. Rastrick, Evidence to the Commission on the Application of Iron to Railway Structures (1849), pp. 287–288, pp. 385–389, Appendix 3, Plate 9. Rastrick, who renovated the bridge in 1827, said the span was 165 ft although his drawing shows 155 ft; local histories say 150 ft. He dated it c.1808; Jervoise said c.1806. Roland Paxton has referred to a letter by Telford dated 22 October 1805 which suggests that Sir Alexander Gordon should look at it on a proposed tour.
   Google Scholar
• F. M. Eden, Porto-Bello &c. (1798), Plate 2. R. Dodd, Letters to a merchant &c., 1798. Anon, Explanation of a Plan (by James Douglass) for improving the Port of London, 1799.
   Google Scholar
• A. W. Skempton, "Telford and the Design for a New London Bridge", inA. Penfold, (ed.), Thomas Telford, Engineer (Thomas Telford, London, 1980), pp. 62–83.
   Google Scholar
• R. Dodd. Introductory Report.. . on the proposed Bridge across the River Mersey at Runcorn &c., 1800.
   Google Scholar
• Plate 1 in the Committee's Report of 3 June 1801. Ink copies survive in (i) the Telford papers, Institution of Civil Engineers' archives; (ii) the Reynolds Sketchbook, Science Museum Library (mis-titled 'Aqueduct' and mis-dated 1794): (iii) The Rennie papers in the National Library of Scotland (with a note stating that it was sent to Rennie to enable him to complete his report (May 1801) to the Committee). One unsuccessful design entrant (Soane) to the London Bridge competition, in a letter of 28 March 1801 to another (Dance), dismissed the huge iron arches by Dodd, Wilson and Telford as 'high-flying grid-irons'-a common contemptuous view at that time.
   Google Scholar
• J. Rennie, in a letter dated 12 December 1820, claimed that Wyatt submitted in 1798 a model for a bridge with hollow iron ribs to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury where he said, 'I believe the model is still'.
   Google Scholar
• J. G. James, "Thomas Wilson's Cast-iron Bridges 1800-1810", Transactions of the Newcomen Society, Vol. 50 (1978–79), pp. 55–72.
   Google Scholar
• W. Jessopjr., Letter 27 June 1811 in the Rennie papers. National Library of Scotland.
   Google Scholar
• E. C. R. Hadfield and A. W. Skempton. William Jessop, Engineer (David & Charles, Newton Abbot, 1979), 233–238.
   Google Scholar
• Butterley Furnace Ledger '13', 31 August 1805 to 31 December 1806. The Surrey Iron Railway was erected by John Espin who also installed the Offbam Hill, Sussex, railway for Butterley (1808–09) but then left the firm to set up on his own at Louth. (For Thomas Espin of Louth-a brother?-see H. Colvin, Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 1978.) The Butterley Company's Boston footbridges were erected by Espin's colleague William Bourne, who had erected their steam engine at the Caledonian Canal in 1806.
   Google Scholar
• New British iron bridges, and engineering discoveries were described and illustrated in Annales des Arts et Manufactures (54 vols, 1799–1814), established by Napoleon to disseminate engineering intelligence. It was run by Irishman Robert O'Reilly who had fled to France to escape debts incurred as manager of the London Opera House. A contemporary noted that he was a favourite of the Emperor and 'lived in style and kept his girl'-hence the origin of the phrase 'living the life of Reilly'?.
   Google Scholar
• Consideration of dimensions shows that for several years some engineers continued to design in the old units and metricate afterwards. The problem of jettisoning the age-old system of handy everyday units and forcing everyone to adopt new units based on a mismeasurement of the Earth's circumference (and not divisible by 3 or 4) seems obvious. The French experience of the 1790s was paralleled here in the 1960s, the British government believing that the effect of metrication would barely be noticed. In fact, there was loss of self-confidence on the shop floor as intuitive calculations and cross-checks, based on apprenticeship training and long years of experience, became instantly impossible. This was arguably one of the most important factors in the ensuing rapid decline of the British engineering industries although the topic was rarely aired openly.
   Google Scholar
• M. J. Gaston-Rosnay, French patent submitted 6 germinal, revised 3 floréal and granted 9 prairial An. 7 (26 March, 22 April and 28 May 1799) with ten sheets of surrealistically crude drawings. A pamphlet was also published: A. P. Garros, "Ponts en Fer Indestructibles et Amovibles. Jetées en Deux Minutes, Découvertes du Cit. M. J. G. R." An. 7 (Paris).
   Google Scholar
• E. M. Gauthey, Traité de la Construction des Ponts, Vol. 2 (1809–16) P. 119, has a brief description of his design. A better account with interesting background is given in reference 32.
   Google Scholar
• F. A. Davy-Chavigne, Mémoire sur la Construction des Ponts en Fer, et Particulierement sur Ceux Projettes en Fer CouM &c., printed version of a paper read 4 and 19 germinal An. 9 (25 March and 9 April 1801, Paris).
   Google Scholar
• L. A. de Cessart, Description des Travaux Hydrauliques, Vol. 1 (1806), pp. 309–316. Plate 34 deals with de Cessart's original design only. The actual bridge was described in Anon, Note sur l'Emploi de la Fonte dans la Construction des Ponts, Journal des Mines, vendémiaire An. 12, Vol. 15 (Sept.-Oct. 1803), pp. 79–80, (from Bulletin des Sciences). Unlike the metric system, the revolutionary new calendar used in the above references was thrown out in 1805 when government scientists belatedly realized that the names of the months applied only in certain parts of the northern hemisphere.
   Google Scholar
• Anon, Description du Pont en Fer CouM . . en Face du Jardin du Roi, (Rouen, 1814). L. Bruyere, Etudes Relatives a l'Art des Constructions, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1823), 3e Recueil, pp. 4–5.
   Google Scholar
• R. Stephenson, (Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Bridges" (1856)) referred to the zinc in the Pont d'Austerlitz. H. Haupt, (General Theory of Bridge Construction (New York, 1851), p. 244) stated that he had run zinc into the joints of a 133 ft iron arch added to a wooden truss bridge. B. B. Stoney, (Stresses in Girders &c. (1866), p. 638) said that he too had run zinc into the joints of a 96 ft iron arch.
   Google Scholar
• M. C. Lamande, (Pont de l'Ecole Militaire &c. (Rouen, 1814)) referred to the iron plans but illustrated only the masonry bridge as built. The iron design was given by Bruyere (reference 34, Plates 9 and 10).
   Google Scholar
• C. Schmidt, "Le Pont de Mayence", La Revue Rhenane (1923), Nov., pp. 93–97. Design drawings in the Archives Nationales (signed E. St. Far).
   Google Scholar
• Bruyère, reference 34, Plates 11 (Crou Bridge) and 12 (Invalides Bridge).
   Google Scholar
• Ponts et Chaussées. Recueil de Dessins . . relatifs a l'Art de l'Ingénieur, 2e collection terminée en 1825, 1827 (Paris). Lemoine in reference 5 states that a design competition was held in 1806 for the Invalides site; the first prize was awarded to Kermaignant. It was he who widened the old Pont de la Guillotiere at Lyon with iron in 1838–39..
   Google Scholar
• A. J. C. B. Duleau, Essai Théorique et Experimental sur la Resistance du Fer Forge (Paris, 1820). Duleau claimed that his report on the tests to the Ponts et Chaussées in 1813 was the first such report since Aubry's, although he admitted that between 1813 and his book in 1820, test results had been published by Navier, Rondelet, Pictet and George Rennie.
   Google Scholar
• Lemoine, reference 5, p. 50.
   Google Scholar
• A. R. Polonceau, Pont en Fer Exécute a ['Entree du Parc de Maisons en 1822 (Paris, 1829).
   Google Scholar
• A. R. Polonceau, Notice sur le Nouveau Systeme des Ponts en Fonte, suivi dans la Construction du Pont de Carrousel (Paris, 1839).
   Google Scholar
• Examples survive in Strasbourg (1840) and Seville (1845–52).
   Google Scholar
• W. P. Baildon, Baildon and the Baildons, Vol. 2 (1924–26), pp. 487–497. John was trained by his father, Yorkshireman William Baildon, who was then working at Carron. In 1793 he went to Silesia and spent his life there introducing British methods, much as W. Wilkinson did in France.
   Google Scholar
• Literature on the history of German and Silesian iron bridges is extensive. Recent works with bibliographies are E. Schmidt, Der preussische Eisenkunstguss (Berlin, 1981), and J. Rospedowski, "Iron Bridges in the Lower Silesian Region", Proceedings of the ICCROM Symposium on Ironworks and Iron Monuments, Ironbridge, (Rome, 1985) pp. 409–427.
   Google Scholar
• H. J. Giersberg, "Die Eisener Briicke tiber den Potsdamer Stadtkanal", Beitreige zur Potsdamer Geschichte (1969), No. 17, pp. 13–28. Thanks are due to Dr Giersberg for illustrations and notes, and to Dr Martin Sperlich for design drawings, photographs and notes on the Charlottenburg bridges.
   Google Scholar
• G. C. Mehrtens, Vorlesungen iiber Ingenieur-Wissenschaften, Pt. 2 Eisenbriickbau, Vol. 1 (1908), pp. 298–301, Figs. 337–340.
   Google Scholar
• G. Reichenbach, Theorie der Brücken-Bogen &c (Munchen, 1811). W. von Dyck, Georg von Riechenbach (München, 1912). Reichenbach was in England in 1791–93, worked for a while for Boulton & Watt and erected a blowing engine at the Haigh Foundry, Wigan. He stated that he got his idea for tubular bridge ribs from the iron tripod crane at Wilkinson's Bersham works. Three pieces of that historic structure, inscribed 'WILKINSON 1783', were found propping up a barn some years ago and taken into the care of the National Museum of Wales (Industrial Archaeology, Vol. 13 (1978), No. 1, p. 91).
   Google Scholar
• G. C. Mehrtens, "Die erste eisener Briicke Braunschweigs", Braunschwieger G-N-C- Monatsschrift (1914), June, pp. 444–448. F. Heinzerling in Die Brücken in Eisen (Leipzig, 1870), pp. 100–102, Figs. 43–48, deals with the Peitz Bridge.
   Google Scholar
• J. Sauter, "Joseph van Baader", Beitriige zur Geschichte der Technik, Vol. 18, 1928, pp. 84–86. Baader was in England before Reichenbach (from 1787) and himself introduced the latter to Boulton and Watt and the Haigh Foundry.
   Google Scholar
• J. Baader, "Bericht Ueber Einige Versuche, Welche zur Bestimmung des Tragverm gens Verscheidener Constructionen von Eisenern Brücken am 6ten Juny 1812 . . . an der Königl. Maschinen-Werkstatte zu München Vorgenommen Worden Sind": 15 pages of manuscript now in the University of Vienna. Baader lever-loaded centrally some 12 in long end-supported specimens: Ye in x Ye in bar, 2 in outer diameter pipe with 0.23 in wall thickness, 6 in x 1/4 in and 3 in x IA in plates on edge. The latter required restraining against buckling but Baader was able to show that they resisted against greater loads than the other specimens. He then made two large plate specimens, 3 ft and 5 ft long: the latter (2/3 in thick, rivetted from four 0.17 in sheets) was also test-loaded but gave even greater buckling problems. Baader noted that Wiebeking had tested a 5 ft x 10 in cast pipe a few weeks earlier. All three were then rivals for a Munich bridge project; Reichenbach proposed five 56 ft spans with pipe ribs and derided Baader's design as a rivetted bungle. Baader declared that both Reichenbach's and Wiebeking's pipe designs would collapse at the joints under their own weight; his own system would be 'incomparably stronger'—once he had thought of a suitable anti-buckling system.
   Google Scholar
• J. Rennie. Letter to Baader, 12 December 1820, in the archives of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• James, reference 7.
   Google Scholar
• In reference 7—following Russian sources—it is stated that 'Georges' Traitteur was a Frenchman, although evidently at odds with his French colleagues in St. Petersburg. Later research by Michael Chrimes and the author has elucidated his career. He was in fact Wilhelm von Traitteur (1788–1859) from Mannheim, Germany, who went to Russia on the recommendation of the Duchess of Baden (Tsar Alexander's mother-in-law). He survived in the French milieu of the Russian engineering corps thanks to the fact that Duke Alexander of Wiirttemburg (another noble relative) was Head of the Department, and seems to have used him as a deliberate counter to the French group. Confusion over his name and nationality have arisen because all his Russian papers were published in the obligatory French language over the Frenchified name G. (evidently Guillaume) de Traitteur. He made an unused design for a chain bridge at Mannheim.
   Google Scholar
• One wonders about the relative roles of engineer Telford, his founder/entrepreneur Hazledine and his foreman at Plas Kynaston, Stuttle. When Hugh Baird was planning iron-arch supported aqueducts for his Union Canal in 1818 he consulted Telford, who advised him to send his foreman James Thompson to Hazledine to ask for permission to consult Stuttle. It was Stuttle who finally provided details of how the Pont Cysyllte aqueduct was made and erected, and gave the needed advice (Union Canal papers, Institution of Civil Engineers' Telford Collection). Presumably if someone else had wanted details about the larger bridges the same trail would have had to be followed. Several unused Telford iron bridge designs are in the Telford collection.
   Google Scholar
• J. van Laun, "The Kerne Bridge in Herefordshire", Journal of the Railway and Canal Historical Society, Vol. 25 (1979) No. 2, pp. 62–67 and No. 4, pp. 128–135.
   Google Scholar
• M. C. Hill, "Iron and Steel Bridges in Shropshire", Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, Vol. 16 (1959), Part 2, 104–124. A. Blackwall, Historical Bridges of Shropshire (Shrewsbury, 1985).
   Google Scholar
• Aydon & Elwell unsuccessfully tendered for Jessop's Bristol bridges in 1804. Rennie (a swing-bridge customer) consulted Samuel Aydon over his Boston Bridge troubles in 1811, but the earliest fixed bridge of theirs yet located is at Sowerby Bridge which, having been widened twice, is barely recognizable now. Its plaque says, 'This bridge was erected at the expense of Messrs Thos Fearnside, Mearclough Bottom Mill AD1816', as well as giving the makers' names and so on. For details of the widening see J. Eastwood, "Some Works . . . at Sowerby Bridge in Recent Years", Journal of the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, Vol. 57 (1930-31), pp. 1159–1176.
   Google Scholar
• Photographs of several are given in M. J. T. Lewis, "Dunham Bridge, a Memorial History", Occasional Papers, Lincolnshire History and Archaeology (Sleaford, 1976), No. 5.
   Google Scholar
• Several unused Rennie designs are in the archives of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Rennie's first Southwark Bridge design was published in Repertory of Arts, Vol. 19 (1811), Plate 18, and in Ackerman's Repository, Vol. 17 (1812), Plate 24.
   Google Scholar
• This historic and unusual bridge existed in the capital city until 1893 (although sandwiched between two later bridges for much of the time), yet the author vainly sought an illustration for over 30 years. The contractors are unknown although Hunter & English, who installed swing bridges in the nearby docks, are possible, especially in view of Walker's dependence on English for Vauxhall Bridge. Also possible are Bough & Smith, who were contractors on the docks and built the bridge on stone-column piers at Wadesmill 20 miles northward in 1825. Even the completion date is unknown; it was built under the Barking Road Acts of 1809 and 1811, the latter being required to raise further cash to complete both bridge and road. The East India Dock Company were naturally subscribers; their minutes mention James Walker replanning the bridge and approaches from August 1809, and note that the bridge was 'still building' in May 1811. Local histories all give 1810, which is presumably wrong: others give dates from 1813 to 1815. 1813 seems late enough since Walker then took on Vauxhall Bridge. The bridge was being struck constantly by steamboats in the 1880s; in 1892 replacement tenders were invited, and in 1893–96 a new 150 ft span was erected.
   Google Scholar
• Rennie's report and estimate for Chepstow, 4 January 1812, were rejected as too expensive on 15 January.On 4 June 1814 the job went to J. Hazledine, Rastrick & Company at half the price. Their bridge opened on 24 July 1816; see I. Waters, Chepstow Parish Records (Chepstow, 1955), pp. 116–124; drawings in Weale's Bridges, Plates 36–38, and the 1849 Blue Book on iron in railway structures (reference 18), Appendix 3, Plate 8. It was strengthened with box girders in 1889.
   Google Scholar
• The booklet on the Laira Bridge replacement, 1962, stated erroneously that it had come from Coalbrookdale. Full details are given in J. M. Rendel, "Particulars of the Construction of the Lary Bridge", Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 1836), pp. 99–108, Plates 14 and 15. It contained about a tenth of the weight of the iron in Rennie's Southwark Bridge and made Rendel's name.
   Google Scholar
• C. Hollis, Proposed Improvements in Lambeth and Westminster (London, 1829). For Windsor Bridge history (Act 6 July 1819) the author is indebted to G. G. CuBingham (Windsor Borough Engineer) for showing him his typescript notes made from local records at the time the bridge was closed to road traffic (1970). Hollis's design was submitted to Telford for approval (Report 5 February 1822). Hollis was then erecting a church with an iron-framed roof in Windsor (1820–22, extant). For Kerne, see reference 57.
   Google Scholar
• Obituary of Potter in Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 17 (1857), pp. 94–96. For High Bridge, Handsacre, see F. W. Simms, (ed.), Public Works of Great Britain (Weale, London, 1838), Div. 2, pp. 23–27, Plates 99–101. Details of the elaborate joints are given in E. C. Ruddock, Arch Bridges and their Builders (University Press, Cambridge, 1979), p. 170.
   Google Scholar
• Discussing Smeaton's Blackfriars Bridge design in 1760, Publicus wrote, 'This curve is elliptical: that is to say it is what all the world means when speaking of arches . . because the mathematical ellipse cannot be put into execution but with a great deal of trouble. . . All the world except a few pedants and quibblers call it an ellipsis because it is liker that than any other figure'.
   Google Scholar
• Colour wash drawing signed W. A. Provis September 1810 (Telford Collection, archives of the Institution of Civil Engineers) shows five segments per rib, each with seven diagonal crosses. The author has been unable to check that it was actually built like that.
   Google Scholar
• For detailed connection drawings, see James, reference 5.
   Google Scholar
• C. Perrault, Recueil de Plusieurs Machines de Nouvelle Invention (Paris, 1700), pp. 40–44, Plates 10 and 11—a posthumous work since Perrault died in 1688. Perronet attributed the idea of varying the width of Sevres bridge to mathematician Antoine Parent (1666–1716). See also J. G. James, "The Evolution of Wooden Bridge Trusses to 1850", Journal of the Institute of Wood Science, Vol. 9 (1982), June, pp. 116–135, and Dec., pp. 168–193, Fig. 41.
   Google Scholar
• For drawings of details, see W. Mackenzie, "Account of the Bridge over the Severn near Tewkesbury . . . designed by Thomas Telford", Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 2 (1838), pp. 1–14, Plates 1–3. For photographs of details see Ruddock, reference 66 and W. W. Lowson, "The Reconstruction of the Craigellachie Bridge", Structural Engineer, Vol. 45 (1967), No. 1, pp. 23–28, and No. 8, pp. 287–289.
   Google Scholar
• The craze for colonnade bridges was possibly inspired by prints of Pont Cysyllte.
   Google Scholar
• R. L. Edgeworth, Letter to Rennie 20 December 1810, and another passed to Rennie 5 May 1811 complaining of no reply, Rennie papers, National Library of Scotland.
   Google Scholar
• E. L. Chappell, Historic Melingriffith, (Cardiff, 1940), pp. 55–56.
   Google Scholar
• J. G. James, "Ralph Dodd, the Very Ingenious Schemer", Transactions of the Newcomen Society, Vol. 47 (1974–76), pp. 161–178, reproduces the patent drawings on p. 168.
   Google Scholar
• C. Hutton, in a letter to Rennie on 7 May 1811 noted that he had been trying to calculate the strength and thickness of parts of the proposed Southwark Bridge, but gave no details of methods or results.
   Google Scholar
• Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées Ms 2219. Report by Perronet on Montpetit's design (undated but c.1779–80).
   Google Scholar
• A. W. Skempton, "The Origin of Iron Beams". Actes du 8e Congrès Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences (1956), pp. 1029–1039. A. W. Skempton and H. R. Johnson, "William Strutt's Cotton Mills 1793-1812", Transactions of the Newcomen Society, Vol. 30, 1955–56, pp. 179–205. A. W. Skempton and H. R. Johnson "The First Iron Frames", Architectural Review (1962), Mar., pp. 175–186.
   Google Scholar
• Skempton, reference 20, and Lowson, reference 71.
   Google Scholar
• There was much discussion as to whether iron was improved or worsened by second and third meltings. Hassenfratz ("Sur l'espece de fonte de fer &c.", Journal des Mines, Vol. 33 (1813), pp. 81–100) concluded from tests that the iron became stronger but more rustable but the effect was swamped by variations in iron from batch to batch.
   Google Scholar
• I. German (Hermann), Opisanie Petrozavodskogo i Konchezerskogo Zavodov (Descriptions of Petrozavodsk and Konchezersk ironworks) (St. Petersburg, 1803), has the most complete descriptions and illustrations of every aspect of a large cannon foundry, from ore-winning to final boring, that the author has seen.
   Google Scholar
• J. W. Hall, "Joshua Field's Diary of a Tour in 1821", Transactions of the Newcomen Society, Vol. 6 (1925–26), pp. 1–41.
   Google Scholar
• J. F. Daubuisson, "Notice sur la Fonderie de Fer de Gleiwitz", Journal des Mines, Vol. 14 (1803), pp. 455–468. E. Vollhann, Nachrichten Uber die Eisenern Briicken Welche im Jahre 1822 auf der Eisengiesserey bey Gleiwitz . . gegossen wurden, (Eichstatt, 1823).
   Google Scholar
• The 1849 Blue Book on iron in railway structures (reference 18) has much on pig iron mixtures but is misleading by not making it clear if the respondents meant 'best' quality (which would be priced out of the market) or 'best' commercial mixture.
   Google Scholar
• For example, in 1847 Heywood's Phoenix Foundry, Derby, cast the bridges (50-90 ft spans) for Locke's South Western Railway extension from Nine Elms to Waterloo. These survived until the 1880s but when demolished were found to be honeycombed and to have huge blow-holes along the web-flange junctions—up to 131/2 ft long with an average section of 41/2 in'. Where the holes reached the surface they had been plugged with rust cement. The vertical spandrel struts had mostly snapped and been strapped with wrought iron (A. W. Szlumper, Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 107 (1891-92), pp. 287–304).
   Google Scholar