Conservation Management Plan for the Iron Bridge, Ironbridge, Shropshire, UK

Conservation Plan for the Iron Bridge,

Ironbridge, Shropshire

Prepared for English Heritage by David de Haan and others

Conservation Plan for the Iron Bridge - Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

1

Conservation Plan for the Iron Bridge, Ironbridge, Shropshire

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

Coalbrookdale

Telford

Shropshire

TF8 7DX

David de Haan

Ironbridge Institute

[email protected]

July 2011


2

CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE IRON BRIDGE,

IRONBRIDGE, SHROPSHIRE

Contents

List of Figures ….…..……………………………………………………………………………..…...4 Abbreviations ….……..………………………………………………………………………………..7 Acknowledgements ….…..…………………………………………………………………………….7

Summary ….……..….………………………………………………………………………...……….8

Section 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….9

1.1 Scope of the Conservation Plan ….…..………..…………………..…………………….…..….9

1.2 Reasons for commissioning the Plan ..……………………………………………………….9 1.3 Approach to the Conservation Plan ………………………………………………...…………..10 1.4 Consultation …….……………………………………………………….………….………11

Section 2. Understanding the Heritage …………………………………………………………….12

2.1 Site description ……………………………………..…………………………………………12 2.2 Local historical context …………………………………………………………………….….15 2.3 Historical development of the Bridge and timeline ………………………………………….16

2.3.1 Phase 1. 1779-1800 ………………………………………………………………….18 2.3.2 Phase 2. 1801-1820 ……………………………………………………………….…20 2.3.3 Phase 3. 1821-1844 ………………………………………………………………….21 2.3.4 Phase 4. 1845-1901 ……………………………………………………………….…23 2.3.5 Phase 5. 1902-1933 ………………...…………………………………………….….25 2.3.6 Phase 6. 1934-1949 …………………………………………………………………28 2.3.7 Phase 7. 1950-1971 …………..……….…………………………………………….29 2.3.8 Phase 8. 1972-1979 …………..……..………………………………………………30 2.3.9 Phase 9. 1980-1998 ……………………………………………………………….…33 2.3.10 Phase 10. 1999-2007 …………….……….……………………………………..….34 2.3.11 Phase 11. 2008-2011 ……………..….……..…………………………………..…35

2.4 The wider historical context ……………………………………………………………………37 2.4.1 The Shropshire Coalfield ............................................................................................37 2.4.2 Spies, artists and tourists ............................................................................................37 2.4.3 Cast iron, a new material in engineering ...................................................................37 2.4.4 Construction techniques in the Bridge ......................................................................38

2.4.5 Record of cracks .........................................................................................................39 2.5 Management information ………………….………………………………………………….40 2.5.1 Guardianship area ......................................................................................................40 2.5.2 All other areas ...........................................................................................................41 2.6 Gaps in the knowledge ………………..………………………………………………………42 2.6.1 Impact of instability in the Gorge ...............................................................................42 2.6.2 Geological survey ......................................................................................................42

2.6.3 Archaeological excavations ........................................................................................42 2.6.4 Recording of the span ................................................................................................42 2.6.5 Building recording of the Tollhouse and shed ...........................................................43 2.6.6 Biodiversity survey of the river and banks ................................................................43 2.6.7 Visitor survey of footfall on and under the Bridge ....................................................43 2.6.8 Sequence of erection anomaly ...................................................................................43

Section 3. Heritage Values and Significance …………………..………………………………….44 3.1 Evidential value ………….…………………………………………………………………….44 3.2 Historical value ………………………………………………………………………………..45 3.3 Aesthetic value ……………….……………………………………………………………….48 3.4 Communal and economic value ………………………………………………………………..50


3

3.5 Statement of significance ………..……………………………………………………………..51

3.5.1 Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site .....................................................................52 3.6 Issues affecting the significance ………….………………………………………..……...….53

Section 4 Issues and Opportunities …………………….…………………………………………54 4.1 Conservation and maintenance of the Bridge .............................................……………………54 4.1.1 Elements on the Bridge .............................................................................................54 4.1.2 Road surface ............................................................................................................55 4.1.3 Paint colour ............................................................................................................56 4.1.4 Sufficient resources for maintenance .....................................................................56

4.1.4 Coordination of owners and partners .....................................................................56 4.2 Developments relating to the setting of the Bridge …..........…..........…………….…………....57 4.2.1 Inappropriate alterations to the setting .....................................................................57 4.3 Presentation, visitor management, community engagement and education .....……………….57 4.3.1 Floodlighting ............................................................................................................58 4.4 Environmental issues ………………………………………………………………………59 4.5 Disasters and risk preparedness ………………………………………...……………………59 4.5.1 Climate change and increased flooding .....................................................................59

4.5.2 Pollution incidents upstream ..................................................................................60 4.5.3 Instability ............................................................................................................60

Section 5. Conservation Policies ………………………….…………………………………………61 5.1 Protection of the spirit of place ………………………………………………………………..61 5.2 Basis of the approach ………………………………………………………………………….61 5.3 Retention of character …………….......................................…………………………………61 5.4 Conservation and maintenance ………………………………………………………………62 5.5 Development ………...……………………………………………………………………….63

5.6 Presentation .........................................................................................................................64 5.7 Environmental pressures ............................................................................................................64 5.8 Disaster and risk preparedness ...............................................................................................64 5.9 Setting ......................................................................................................................................65 5.10 Management, implementation and review …………………………………………………......65

Appendix 1: Gazetteer …………………………………………………………………………….66

Appendix 2: Naming the parts of the Bridge ……………………………………………….…..112

Appendix 3: Table of issues and recommended actions ………………..………………….…….118

Appendix 4: Map regression ………………………………………………………………….….128

Appendix 5: Understanding the development of the Bridge - details …..…….…….…...…......134

Appendix 6: Sequence of erection …………………………………………..................................194

Appendix 7: Visitors’ descriptions ………………………………………………………………204

Appendix 8: Consultation …………………………………………………………………………208

Appendix 9: List and location of major archives ……..………………………….….…….……..218

Appendix 10: Primary sources and bibliography .....….……………………………..………..….232


4

List of Figures

Page

7 Fig 1: The area covered by the Conservation Plan, centred on the Iron Bridge, Ironbridge Gorge, Telford, Shropshire, NGR: SJ 673 034. EH

11 Fig 2: Location map of Ironbridge. Google Images

11 Fig 3: Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site from the WHS Management Plan

11 Fig 4: GIS map of the Iron Bridge and immediate area. EH

11 Fig 5: Boundary from the 1975 Guardianship document. IGMT

13 Fig 6: The Conservation Plan recognises eight zones or areas which correspond to their ownership

16 Fig 7: The location of the three furnaces used for casting the pig iron, with Bedlam used for re-melting the iron into the larger castings for the Bridge. Map, after Raistrick 1953

17 Fig 8: The named parts of the Bridge are shown above and are covered in more detail in Appendix 2. D de Haan

18 Fig 9: Prichard‟s design of 1775. IGMT.1986.8609

18 Fig 10: Pritchard‟s Bringewood Forge bridge of 1772, the general arrangement and proportions of which were used for the Iron Bridge. ICE Historic Engineering Work 1278. ICE

18 Fig 11: Elias Martin‟s watercolour of July 1779. Scandia Company, Stockholm

19 Fig 12: Woodcut by J. Edmunds with the lower ends of the outer ribs missing, 1780 IGMT.1981.20

19 Fig 13: Oil painting by William Williams, 1780. IGMT.1992.12918

20 Fig 14: Demolition of the south abutment in progress, Paul Sandby Munn‟s sketch of 11th July 1802. Victoria & Albert Museum, E3112/1948

21 Fig 15: Lithograph by W Smith showing the timber land arches, 1810. Shropshire County Libraries

22 Fig 16: Watercolour by J Fidlor (attrib), 1837, showing the block of buildings on the north end of the Bridge and the iron land arches. IGMT.1978.73

23 Fig 17: Strengthening plates and spacers added to the inner land arch in 1861. D de Haan 1999

23 Fig 18: One of the 1880 I-beam girders inserted between the ribs of the inner land arch. D de Haan, 1999

24 Fig 19: Early evidence of the deck beams buckling above the inner vertical, 1897.The arrows locate the change of angle. IGMT.1981.53

25 Fig 20. The riveted water main on the downstream footpath seen here in 1962, which wasn‟t removed until 1972. IGMT.1982.1435

25 Fig 21: Repairs in progress, 1902. Wooden planks extend outside the Bridge and a temporary fence can be seen against the far railing. IGMT.1986.6322

25 Fig 22: Drawing of bolt-on ends for damaged deck plates, 1902. IGMT.1972.13

26 Fig 23: Coalbrookdale Company engineering drawing for straps and spacers, 1902. IGMT.1972.12

26 Fig 24: The straps still in situ today. D de Haan 2010

27 Fig 25: Cast iron saddles inserted in 1926. D de Haan 2000


5

27 Fig 26: A bolt that was identified as missing in 1926 is still missing today. D de Haan 2000

29 Fig 27: A 1949 photograph confirms the demolition of the buildings on the end of the Bridge. Aerofilms. A24217, IGMT1993.7888

29 Fig 28: The hole in the deck plate for Borehole B, seen looking up from the towpath. D de Haan 2010.

31 Fig 29: A large crack revealed in the accommodation arch. G Weaver, April 1972

31 Fig 30: Excavation of the north abutment. G Weaver, May 1972

31 Fig 31: The concrete box filling the void. G Weaver, July 1972

31 Fig 32: Tying the ashlar to the reinforcement with stainless steel rods. G Weaver, April 1972

31 Fig 33: The coffer dam looking out from the south bank. Tarmac Construction, 22nd June 1973. IGMT.1987.598

31 Fig 34: Additional bracing inside by the south abutment. Tarmac Construction, August 31st 1973. IGMT.1987.596

31 Fig 35: As well as the horizontal strut 4.5m below the base plates, a concrete facing rose up the abutments stopping four courses from the top. Tarmac Construction, 1st November 1973. IGMT.1987.593

32 Fig 36: The Tollhouse used as an Information Centre in 1972. IGMT.2010.638

32 Fig 37: The Tollhouse after restoration, summer 1975. IGMT.1981.1876

32 Fig 38: Removing the road fill, 1975. Private collection

32 Fig 39: Laying the new surface, 1975. IGMT.1981.154

34 Fig 40: The Bridge under scaffold in late September 1999. S White, IGMT

34 Fig 41: An image from the metric survey by Bill Blake of English Heritage, 2000. EH

35 Fig 42: Elias Martin‟s sketch of 1779. Scandia Company, Stockholm

35 Fig 43: The half scale model over the canal at Blists Hill Victorian Town, October 2001. The photo has been reversed for this comparison. D de Haan

36 Fig 44: June 2009 rope survey and 2011 contract to replace defective wedges

38 Fig 45: Telford‟s Buildwas Bridge of 1796, which survived until 1905. IGMT

38 Fig 46: Telford‟s Longdon-on-Tern aqueduct of 1796. Both were in cast iron by Thomas Telford to replace structures destroyed by the floods of 1795. IGMT

38 Fig 47: The 1782 engraving with its explanatory text. IGMT

38 Fig 48: The pitted surface is typical of an open mould casting. D de Haan 1999

39 Fig 49: An extra long tenon cast on the circle to reach the mortise in the deck bearer above

39 Fig 50: An iron wedge packing up the lower rib of frame B. D de Haan 2001

39 Fig 51: A wedge jacking up the rib of frame E. D de Haan 2001

40 Fig 52: The 1975 Guardianship plan. IGMT

40 Fig 53: The GIS base map does not show the bus lay-by which was installed in 1980. EH

41 Fig 54: The footpath and the railings attached to the Bridge are not part of the Guardianship area. EH Report 2008

41 Fig 55: The path through the accommodation arch, the wall with the two wooden doors, and the viewing platform above are not part of the Guardianship area. EH Report 2008


6

41 Fig 56: The end of the gravel marks the boundary, so some of the York flags are in the Guardianship areas and some are not. EH Report 2008

43 Fig 57: Two of the ten square holes in the base plates on the Tontine side, their purpose unknown

43 Fig 58: They are not repeated on the opposite bank. D de Haan 2010

44 Fig 59: Aerial view of Ironbridge, 1988. IGMT

44 Fig 60: Winter view from downstream. D de Haan 2011

45 Fig 61: Coalbrookdale cast iron steam engine cylinder, 1758. IGMT Elton Collection

45 Fig 62: Coalbrookdale cast iron wheels and rails. IGMT

46 Fig 63: Thomas Telford‟s wrought iron Menai Bridge of 1826. IGMT Elton Collection

47 Fig 64: The small copy of the Bridge at Wörlitz, about 50 miles southwest of Berlin. G Blake-Roberts

48 Fig 65: Rooker‟s engraving of the Bridge, first published in 1782. It is based on the oil painting by Williams shown in Fig 13 on page 19. IGMT.1983.1933

49 Fig 66: Abraham Darby‟s Upper Furnace works at Coalbrookdale, 1758, which was enlarged in 1777 to cast iron for the Bridge. IGMT, Elton Collection

49 Fig 67: A sample of companies and organisations using the Bridge in their logos

51 Fig 68: Iron Bridge lit as part of the Cultural Olympiad celebrations, 2008. IGMT

51 Fig 69: Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site branding, developed in 2008 and featuring the Iron Bridge. Ironbridge Tourism Partnership

54 Fig 70 (left): Fractures to the radials both sides of the middle rib, frame D. D de Haan 1999 54 Fig 71: Rusting between the 1902 steel band and cast iron blocks on the south bank.

D de Haan 2010

54 Fig 72: The right half of the ogee is in thin wrought iron. D de Haan 1999

55 Fig 73: A deck end that broke off in 2010 during exploratory work. P Belford

55 Fig 74: The casting in the IGMT store. D de Haan 2010

55 Fig 75: A frame from the Metric Survey of 2000. EH

58 Fig 76: The large 1960s floodlighting bins (circled). Dawley District Council 1965

58 Fig 77: the smaller 1977 bins. D de Haan 2011

58 Fig 78: A bespoke light column proposal. Candela Light 2010

58 Fig 79: The current flat orange floodlighting

59 Fig 80: Two phases of the impressive temporary light show that launched the Cultural Olympiad in the West Midlands, September 2008. IGMT

59 Fig 81: A fracture on the south bank probably caused by the 1795 flood. D de Haan 2009

60 Fig 82: Flood prediction of a 1-in-100 years event (TWC) compared to the normal situation (EH)

60 Fig 81: Flood prediction of a 1-in-1000 year event. TWC

60 Fig 83: Flood prediction of a 1-in-1000 year event. TWC

60 Fig 84: A regular flood about 1m over the base plates. The 1-in-100 year event would be 4m higher. D de Haan 2007


7

Abbreviations

DCMS Department of Culture, Media & Sport

EH English Heritage

HLF Heritage Lottery Fund

ICE Institution of Civil Engineers

IGMT Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

NMR National Monuments Record

SGCT Severn Gorge Countryside Trust

SRO Shropshire Record Office (now Shropshire Archives)

SS/MT Shropshire Star Morley Tonkin collection, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation

WHS World Heritage Site

WP Wrekin Plan

Acknowledgements

The Conservation Plan has been produced with guidance from Rob Harding and Heather

Sebire of English Heritage, and has been produced in consultation with other specialists at

English Heritage (Alan Capewell, Beth Cavanagh, William Du Croz, Bill Klemperer, Mike

Taylor, Mark Uggles and Richard Zeizer), at Telford & Wrekin Council (Vanessa Harbar,

Jonathan Lloyd, Louise Lomax, Neal Rushton and Michael Vout), at the Ironbridge Gorge

Museum Trust (Paul Belford, Carol Bowsher, Harriet Devlin, Shane Kelleher and Steve

Miller), the local Parish Councils (the Rev Keith Osmund-Smith and Ian Pickles), local

tourism and conservation organisations (Fay Easton, Katie Foster, Gillian Pope and Russell Rowley) and consultants (Bill Blake, Ian Hume, Charles Shapcott and Barrie Trinder).


8

Summary

The Iron Bridge is a graceful single span straddling the River Severn in the heart of the

Ironbridge Gorge, Shropshire, where in 1779 for the first time cast iron was used structurally

and on a large scale. It was pioneering, functional, aesthetically pleasing and a successful

advertisement for cast iron, and the Bridge became a universally recognised symbol of the

Industrial Revolution. The main arch and the two later side arches (1823) retain their integrity

and authenticity because almost 100% of the original fabric remains, and repairs are nearly all

additions rather than replacements.

This first large scale structural use of iron was the culmination of three generations of

innovation in the technologies of iron manufacture and application by the Quaker ironmasters

of Coalbrookdale, especially the Darby family. The Bridge survived the floods that swept

away other bridges along the River Severn in 1795, establishing widespread confidence in the

new building material. It proved that iron could be used in civil engineering and opened the

way for immediate expansion of engineering in bridges, canals, steam power, railways and

ship building. The revolutionary use of iron as a structural material was copied all over

Europe and America. The Bridge became a Scheduled Ancient Monument in 1934 and was

taken into Guardianship in 1975. Because of the significance of the Bridge and the area the

Ironbridge Gorge was designated a World Heritage Site in 1986.

As the Scheduled Monument Description states: “The Iron Bridge is a fine example of a class

of monument which is rare nationally, and is often seen as a symbol of the heyday of British

bridge design, if not of the Industrial Era itself. The standing structure of the bridge increases

our understanding of the casting and assembly methods employed during this pioneering age.”

As soon as the Bridge was built the natural beauty of the area, linked to the marvels of the

industries, encouraged artists to paint and depict it in many media, and from the outset it

inspired writers and travellers to describe it. The Bridge has always been framed by hanging

woods, but today the setting is no longer industrial and it is now the destination for up to a million tourists each year.

As a focal point and also as a river crossing the Bridge is the raison d‟être of the town of

Ironbridge, and its filigree structure must be retained without unsympathetic interventions.

Because the Bridge is so heavily visited, the conservation of this unique asset is a highly

visible process. A visitor to the site in 50 years time should be able to see that all work has

been done with a long-term vision in mind.

The purpose of this Conservation Plan for the Iron Bridge is to inform the future conservation

of the monument and to provide guidance on the risks, opportunities and issues. It is the first

plan of this type to be prepared for the Bridge and provides a framework that will guide the

decision-making process of English Heritage, ensuring that their decisions and resulting

actions appropriately conserve the heritage values of the Bridge. It will also inform any

subsequent Management Plan by English Heritage and its partners and support applications

for funding. While the report concentrates on the areas in Guardianship, inappropriate

interventions to areas around the Bridge will have an undue impact on the monument itself, so these are also included.


9

Section 1 Introduction

1.1. Scope of the Conservation Plan

The Plan concentrates on the Guardianship area as defined in 1975 which covers the Bridge,

the abutments and the 1970s underwater strut that holds the banks apart. The areas which

immediately abut the Bridge do not form part of the Guardianship area and are variously

owned and managed by Telford & Wrekin Council, Severn Gorge Countryside Trust and the

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust. However, they are considered in this Conservation Plan to

allow for efficient management of all the areas and elements and so that the responsible

bodies act in harmony. The wider setting of the surrounding area (the centre of the town of

Ironbridge, the river banks immediately up- and downstream of the structure and the

woodland that creates the backdrop to the Bridge) is also considered.

The Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust (IGMT) was commissioned in 2010 to produce the Plan,

and with consultation from stakeholders that summer and more detailed contributions from

many at English Heritage (EH), Telford & Wrekin Council, IGMT and others, it has been

brought together by David de Haan who has been studying the Bridge for over 30 years, and his colleague Harriet Devlin, both of the Ironbridge Institute.

Fig 1: The area covered by the Conservation Plan, centred on the Iron Bridge, Ironbridge Gorge, Telford,

Shropshire, NGR: SJ 673 034. EH

1.2 Reasons for commissioning the Plan

This Conservation Plan was commissioned by EH in order to:

Inform EH‟s day-to-day maintenance of the Bridge;

Inform the development of proposals for periodic major campaigns of work to the Bridge;


10

Look at ways in which EH can work in partnership with other relevant bodies to develop

knowledge of the Bridge and realise its educational potential;

Develop awareness of the Bridge‟s significance and to allow proposals for works or other

developments to be tested against the policies set out in the Plan.

1.3 Approach to the Conservation Plan

In this report the understanding of the history of the Iron Bridge has been informed by a

detailed survey of all sources – archives, contemporary artistic evidence, photography,

engineering reports, and the views of stakeholders. Understanding the significance has been

dependent on the analysis of this material and through comments from visitors over the

centuries, and from current stakeholders, many of them involved in the management of the

monument either currently or in the recent past. The many reports commissioned in the

Bridge‟s long history – and especially those of the past five years – have been consulted to

identify both the conservation and management issues and elements that might affect the significance.

The approach to this Conservation Plan has been principally informed by James Semple

Kerr‟s The Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans for Places

of European Cultural Significance (6th Edition, 2004), by EH‟s own Conservation Principles:

Policies and Guidance (2008), and by HLF‟s Conservation Management Planning (2008).

This approach takes on board core conservation principles, including:

The concept of the historic environment as a shared resource, which everyone should be

able to participate in sustaining;

Understanding the significance of places is vital, and that significant places should be

managed to sustain their values;

Sustaining these values is only possible by managing change in a reasonable, transparent and consistent manner, and learning lessons along the way.

Section 1 of the Plan (page 9) identifies the boundaries of the study area, and the aims and

structure of the report. Section 2 (page 12) provides a site description, the local historical

context, a more detailed outline of the site development, the wider historical context,

management information, and gaps in the knowledge. Section 3 (page 44) addresses heritage

values and significance. Section 4 (page 54) deals with issues and opportunities, covering

conservation management, development, presentation, environmental issues, and disaster and risk preparedness. Section 5 (page 61) deals with conservation policies.

The report is supported by:

Appendix 1, page 66: a Gazetteer of elements and sites pertinent to the future management of

the monument

Appendix 2, page 112: the component parts of the Bridge and their names

Appendix 3, page 118: a table of issues and recommended actions

Appendix 4, page 128: an historic map regression

Appendix 5, page 134: an extensive chronology covering archives, artists‟ evidence, historic

photographs and technical reports

Appendix 6, page 194: a probable sequence of erection of the Bridge based on the detailed

evidence

Appendix 7, page 204: visitors‟ descriptions from the 18th

century onwards

Appendix 8, page 208: the responses of over 40 individuals to a consultation

Appendix 9, page 218: a list of the major archives and their location

Appendix 10, page 232: primary sources and bibliography.


11

1.4 Consultation

In 2010 a public consultation questionnaire (see Appendix 8) was sent out to a wide range of

stakeholders and replies have been incorporated from over 40 individuals and organisations,

including conservation bodies, local authorities, community and business organisations, and

heritage, environmental and historical groups. Follow-up interviews took place with key consultees and specialists.

Organisation / Function Consultee

English Heritage Project Director, West Territory

English Heritage Property Curator, West Territory

English Heritage Inspector of Ancient Monuments, West Midlands Region

English Heritage Head of Visitor Operations, West Midlands Region

English Heritage Visitor Operations Director

English Heritage Technical Manager, West Midlands Region

English Heritage M&E Technical Manager B&CE, West Midlands Region

English Heritage Head of Civil and Structural Engineering

English Heritage Estates Surveyor

English Heritage Historic Areas Advisor

Telford & Wrekin Member of Parliament

Telford & Wrekin Council World Heritage Officer

Telford & Wrekin Council World Heritage Site Co-ordinator (retired)

Telford & Wrekin Council Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Housing

Telford & Wrekin Council Team Leader, Engineering Services

Telford & Wrekin Council Ironbridge Ward Councillor

Telford & Wrekin Council Senior Engineering Ecologist

Telford & Wrekin Council Urban Designer

Gorge Parish Council Chair

Broseley Town Council Chair

Severn Gorge Countryside Trust Manager

Ironbridge & Telford Tourism Chair

Shropshire & Telford Tourism Chair

Shropshire Enterprises Chair, Ironbridge Regeneration Partnership

Broseley Local History Society Chair

Ironbridge Institute Programme Director, Heritage Management

Ironbridge Institute Programme Director, Historic Environment Conservation

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Chief Executive

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Deputy Chief Executive

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Vice President and descendent of the Darby family

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Chairman

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Vice Chairman

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Archaeologist (retired)

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Archaeologist

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Visitor Information Centre Manager

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Librarian & Information Officer

Heritage Lottery Fund West Midland Panel member

Consultant Structural Engineer (ex English Heritage)

Consultant Writer on Industrial and Social History

Consultant Metric Survey and Documentation (ex English Heritage)


12

Section 2 Understanding the Heritage

Fig 2 (left): Location map of Ironbridge. Google Images. Fig 3 (right): Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site

from the WHS Management Plan, with the area of Fig 4 in red.

Fig 4 (left): GIS map of the Iron Bridge and immediate area. Fig 5 (right): Guardianship boundary from the

1975 document.

2.1 Site Description

The Iron Bridge is located at NGR SJ 673 034 crossing the River Severn between Ironbridge

and Broseley and is situated within the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site. The

designation was inscribed by UNESCO in November 1986, which notes that the Bridge is “a

masterpiece of man‟s creative genius... [which] ...exerted great influence on developments in

the fields of technology and architecture.”

It was designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument in 1934 (SAM 27558, previously SA106),

with the description revised and adopted on 7th

February 1997, and it had been Grade I listed

by 1983. In the early 19th

Century the settlement that grew around it became Ironbridge (one

word) named after the Iron Bridge (two words).


13

The Bridge was taken into Guardianship on 29th

October 1975, the realisation of a proposal

made on 15th

March four years earlier by the Secretary of State for the Environment in

relation to the work to stabilise the Bridge – by lightening the north abutment, inserting an

underwater strut between the banks, and lightening the road deck asphalt. The previous

owners, Shropshire County Council, had acquired it on 12th

October 1950 from the Bridge

trustees. Ownership has since passed to Telford & Wrekin Council, who acquired it on 31st

March 1998. Guardianship now rests with DCMS, whose duties in this respect are delegated to English Heritage.

Fig 6: The Conservation Plan recognises eight zones or areas marked on the above plan, which correspond to

their ownership. EH

While the Plan concentrates on the Bridge, it recognises that the adjacent zones or areas are of

material consideration (see Gazetteer, Appendix 1). They are briefly described below. Their grouping mostly corresponds to their ownership:

1. The area or Guardianship (EH)

The Guardianship (1) covers the Bridge, its road deck, railings and tollgate, the abutments

and the 1970s underwater strut that holds the banks apart. Running almost due north-

south, there is one main arch of about 30m span in cast iron, comprising five similar ribs,

and with decorative radials, circles and ogees. An inscription on the outer ribs says that

the Bridge was cast at Coalbrookdale and erected in 1779. The road deck is lined with

iron railings which meet at a decorative central roundel, and there is an iron tollgate at the

southern end and a staggered row of iron bollards at the northern end. The north abutment

(Tontine side) is sandstone faced which was sourced from quarries in the immediate

vicinity, and it has an accommodation arch passing through it. There are two side arches

6

3b

3c

3a

5

5

5

1

5 2a 2b 2c

2c 2c

2d

2e

2f

4a

c 4b

8a

2g

7a

8b 8c

7b

3c


14

on the south bank, also in cast iron, but with none of the decorative features on the main

arch. They are separated by two slender sandstone piers. Behind the arch furthest from the

river is the truncated abutment which originally mirrored the one on the north bank.

2. Areas owned by Telford & Wrekin Council (TWC)

These are on the north bank adjacent to the Guardianship area. The north end of the road

across the Bridge ends in a straight row of iron bollards (2a) near the kerb and next to a

bus stop bay. On one side of this bus stop is a war memorial (2b) and on the other a

viewing area with seating (2c), which has been built on the remains of the Tontine vaults.

Planted banks (2c) on either side of the Bridge slope down from the road with steps

leading to a lower viewing area (2d) which has been built on the remains of the Tontine

stables. A further fight of steps leads from viewing platform down again to the towpath.

A footpath (2e) passes under the accommodation arch, and another footpath passes

through the ironwork of the Bridge (2f) on the towpath. The only land on the south bank owned by TWC is the flight of steps (2g) and the car park (see below, 8a).

3. Areas owned by the Severn Gorge Countryside Trust (SGCT)

These are on the south bank and include all the land abutting and under the Bridge apart

from those identified in 4 and 5 below. This includes the unadopted road of Bower Yard

(3a), the triangle of land within the access roads (3b), and the road on the upstream side of

the Bridge leading down to the riverside properties and passing through the inner land

arch. The river banks (3c) below this road are also owned by SGCT.

4. The Tollhouse and shed owned by Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust (IGMT)

The brick tollhouse is two rooms wide and two storeys above road level, continuing a

further storey below down to ground level (4a). The upper storeys serve as an exhibition

space about the Bridge; the lower storey is an apartment accessed down a flight of brick

steps and through a small garden. The small brick shed on the opposite side of the road

has a sloping roof (4b). The iron tollgate forms the southern boundary of the Guardianship

area and is in the care of EH (1).

5. Adjacent private properties

On the north bank downstream of the Bridge is a group of buildings of which the one

nearest the Bridge is owned by the landmark Trust (with the Museum shop on the ground

floor). On the south bank there are two houses close to the upstream side of the Bridge

and two more on the downstream side. A further group of private buildings are accessed

beyond these on the downstream side, but are considered to be outside the area of this

Plan.

6. The River Severn (Environment Agency)

At most times of the year the river stays within the 30m gap between the piers of the

Bridge, but at flood times it rises considerably and covers the towpath on the north bank and even the road on the south bank.

7. The setting, north

This area covers the wider backdrop of the town of Ironbridge (7a), especially the Tontine

and the Square. It also considers the upstream long view to and from the Rotunda on the top of Lincoln Hill (7b).

8. The setting, south

The car park (8a) is owned by TWC and is on the site of the former Ironbridge & Broseley

railway station and sidings. On the approach roads are private properties along Bower

Yard, Ironbridge Road and Bridge Road (8b). The woodland on the banks above the Bridge form the SSSI areas of Benthall Edge, Workhouse Coppice and Ladywood (8c).


15

2.2 Local historical context

The area is rich in minerals – coal, iron ore, limestone and clay – laid down in the

Carboniferous era some 50 million years ago, forming what became known as the Shropshire

Coalfield. Over time some of these layers have been brought near to the surface by the

buckling of the strata, and the area is riddled with fault lines. In the last Ice Age the ice cap

approached to within a few miles of the area, blocking the northwards flow of the River

Severn from the Welsh mountains to its original outlet to the sea near Chester. Fifteen

thousand years ago as the ice melted a large lake was formed, blocked to the north by the

receding ice, and to the south by a ridge of hills, Wenlock Edge. The water found a weakness

in a fault in this ridge and drained southwards, cutting a new channel that became the Gorge.

With the previously buried layers of minerals exposed on the valley sides and a transport

route at the bottom, the valley saw the early exploitation of the minerals and their export by

river. Limestone has been extracted in early medieval times, coal mined since the 1330s and

iron smelted since the 1530s. In the 17th

Century the Severn was the second busiest river in

Europe after the Rhine, but although enormous trade was carried up and down the Severn,

crossing it remained hazardous. Routes along the banks were no better than tracks and there was no towpath until 1800.

The hillsides of the Gorge were heavily wooded and were coppiced to provide the source of

charcoal for the furnace industries. Artists‟ evidence show that even at its industrial peak

around 1800 the woods remained a key feature, with only the 100m on either side of the river

banks given over to buildings. Until the development of coke as an alternative fuel the

furnaces and forges were small and scattered, but once the dependency on large areas of

woodland was removed the furnaces could be built close together and productivity rose exponentially.

Easy access to all the raw materials of iron-making, water power to drive bellows and

hammers, plus a river to transport the products to market – these factors had made the Severn

Gorge industrialised by the early 17th

century, long before other parts of the country. When

the Quaker ironmaster Abraham Darby I introduced coke to smelt iron in 1709, the floodgates

were opened for a century of innovation. Three successive generations were involved at the

start, the eldest son always being called Abraham. Each of them pioneered new products in

cast iron – including steam engine cylinders, rails and wheels – setting in train an era of development we have come to call the Industrial Revolution.


16

2.3 Historical development of the Bridge and timeline

It was Abraham Darby III (1750-89) who led the project to build a bridge in iron. The idea

came from Shrewsbury architect Thomas Pritchard which he had put to the ironmaster John

Wilkinson, who in turn spurred Darby on to make it happen. It was a private venture so shares

were raised to pay for the Bridge, but in the event they only covered half the cost and Abraham made good the rest out of his own pocket.

An Act of Parliament to build a bridge was passed in 1776 and included the rates for tolls,

which remained unchanged until the Bridge closed to vehicles in 1934 and to pedestrians in

1950. It did not stipulate that the Bridge had to be of iron, though Pritchard had suggested this

material to John Wilkinson in 1773. Pritchard died in December 1777 and the resulting

structure owes more to Abraham Darby and his foreman patternmaker Thomas Gregory.

However, the proportions and shape of the Iron Bridge closely resemble one of Pritchard‟s stone bridges of 1772.

The main structural elements were probably cast at the nearest furnace – Bedlam – a belief

that stems from the need to raise the castings from boats below, and tested in a half scale

model in 2001. Three different furnaces provided the pig iron, much of it re-melted at

Bedlam. The smaller decorative castings (radials, circles, ogees, swan-neck brackets for the

railings) came from three different furnaces – The Old Furnace in Coalbrookdale a mile away,

Lightmoor Furnace two miles away, and Bedlam Furnaces a quarter of a mile downstream

from the Bridge site. All were either owned or leased by Abraham Darby. His Old Furnace

was enlarged in 1777, but it would have been very difficult to bring the large castings down

the valley from there on the unmade road. The ten largest weigh 5.8 tonnes each and when

laid flat would measure 21.3m long by 4.5m across at the widest point of the curve. Ten more

castings weigh around 5 tonnes and another twenty weigh around 3 tonnes each. It is likely a

temporary furnace was built on the land now occupied by the Square to make small one-off castings as required.

Fig 7: The location of the three furnaces used for casting the pig iron, with Bedlam used for re-melting the iron

into the larger castings for the Bridge. Map, after Raistrick 1953

LIGHTMOOR

FURNACE

BEDLAM

FURNACES

OLD FURNACE, COALBROOKDALE

BRIDGE SITE


17

By the time the Bridge was built the area now known as the Ironbridge Gorge was called

Coalbrookdale, and with raw materials and workers on both banks the need for a safe crossing

became increasingly important. There was a medieval bridge two miles upstream at Buildwas

and six ferries within the Gorge, but the Severn can be treacherous when swollen with flood

water so the ferries were not always safe. One of the ferries was owned by Abraham Darby,

linking the wagon roads of Broseley on the south side with Madeley Wood on the north, and

it was this site that he chose for the Bridge. Ironbridge as a settlement did not exist, but many

of the Bridge Proprietors funded the development of the Tontine Hotel and the Square, and

long distance coaching routes were diverted to cross the Bridge so tourism was inherent in the

project from the outset. Industrial spies, artists and writers came to see this incredible place,

where the skies were alight day and night with the glow of furnaces. The name Coalbrook

Dale (in two words) was cast on the Bridge so from the moment the first rib was erected it acted as an advertisement. See map regression, Appendix 4.

For a fuller account, see The Iron Bridge by Neil Cossons and Barrie Trinder, 1979; the

revised edition of 2002 also considers the global consequences. Another key source is The

Iron Bridge: Historic Building Survey, Record & Analysis, 2001 by David de Haan.

Timeline

The following section presents an overview of the known chronology of the Bridge, together

with an analysis of any gaps in our understanding and potential areas for future research. For

the purposes of this report, the historical development of the Bridge has been divided into ten

Phases. These are based on a combination of archaeological, historical and documentary

evidence, and represent periods of change or activity ranging from 7 to 57 years. The changes

between phases may be associated with main structural events, such as the beginning of Phase

2 with the construction of wooden land arches, or the beginning of Phase 3 with the erection

of iron land arches; other phases relate to changes in ownership or management, such as the

Scheduling of the Bridge in 1934 which marks the beginning of Phase 6, or the beginning of

Phase 7 with the transfer of ownership to Shropshire County Council. Comprehensive supplementary details are to be found in Appendix 5.

Fig 8: The named parts of the Bridge are shown above and are covered in more detail in Appendix 2. Author


18

2.3.1 Phase 1. 1779-1800

1779: Single free-standing cast iron arch with masonry abutments added the same year.

1783: Tollhouse added.

1792-9: Cracks to the abutments repaired.

Although the erection of the ironwork of the Bridge itself took place in 1779, there were

several years of preparation and planning before this. The first discussions took place in the

early 1770s, and the first design was drawn up in 1775 (Fig 9, below) by Shrewsbury architect

Thomas Farnolls Pritchard. 1 As Pritchard died in December 1777 the detailed design of the

ironwork of the Bridge actually owes more to the Quaker ironmaster Abraham Darby III and

his foreman patternmaker Thomas Gregory, but the general arrangement closely resembles

Pritchard‟s 1772 Bringewood Forge Bridge near Ludlow (Fig 10).

Fig 9 (left): Prichard‟s design of 1775. IGMT. Fig 10 (right): Pritchard‟s Bringewood Forge Bridge of 1772, the

general arrangement and proportions of which were used for the Iron Bridge. ICE.

Darby took a lease on Bedlam Furnace in 1776 and the Old Furnace at Coalbrookdale was

enlarged in 1777, so there was capacity to cast the iron. Site work began in 1777 and the footings for the new bridge had been built up to base plate level by October 1778.

The Bridge was erected in three months during

the summer of 1779, the ironwork being

essentially a free-standing structure anchored

into, but not braced by the abutments. This is

most clearly shown on the watercolour sketch

(Fig 11) by Elias Martin, looking upstream,

undated but evidently painted in July 1779, as

the first arch went up on 1st and 2

nd July.

2

Fig 11: Elias Martin‟s watercolour of July 1779. Scandia Company, Stockholm

The painting shows a flimsy scaffold

downstream of the ironwork, with three of the

five ribs in place, the inner verticals, and a few timber struts to keep the castings in their

relative positions. Most importantly, there is no sign of the abutments above the base plates at this stage. This is still the only known image of the Bridge under construction.

3

The uprights were built perpendicular on the Tontine (north) side of the river, but on the

Broseley (south) side they settled at an angle. The rest of the abutments and the road

connections took longer to complete so the Bridge was not opened to traffic until New Years‟

Day in 1781.

1 IGMT 1986.8609

2 Shrewsbury Chronicle, 10

th July 1779

3 Skandia Company Collection, Stockholm.


19

A woodcut by J. Edmunds of Madeley of 1780 (Fig 12, below), shows the lowest section of

the outer ribs missing, 4 also recorded in an aquatint by E. Edgcombe, published 1

st May

1782. 5 Abraham Darby commissioned William Williams to produce an oil painting of the

Bridge in 1780. 6 This was conceived as a promotional image (Fig 13), and was issued as an

engraving by Michael Angelo Rooker in 1782 together with an engineering drawing. It shows

the Bridge already in use and the missing rib sections in place, although in fact these were not added until 1791.

7

Fig 12 (left): Woodcut by J. Edmunds with the lower ends of the outer ribs missing, 1780. IGMT

Fig 13 (right): Oil painting by William Williams, 1780. IGMT.

The Toll House was not built until 1783. In December 1784 cracks were recorded on the

south abutment and the trustees “ordered that the Cracks in the Arch on the Benthall Side be

gaged and examined if it goes any worse.” 8 This was presumably the accommodation arch

that was within the south abutment. These cracks continued to worsen, but it was not until 1798 that tie bars were added to both abutments to remedy the problem.

In 1786 the trustees “...ordered that Lamps be put up ... Two on the Centre of the Bridge...” 9

Earlier paintings and prints already show two lamps, but this is assumed to be artistic licence.

Photographs only ever show a single lamp, and on the upstream parapet

In 1787 the iron railings were painted a “deep Lead Colour”, 10

the first evidence of the

Bridge being painted. In the same year a mahogany model of the Bridge, 1/24 scale, was

presented to the Royal Society of Arts. The model is now in the collection of the Science

Museum. 11

It is interesting that it shows the Bridge with the completed ribs despite the fact

they had not yet been built (see below). This suggests it was made from the engineering drawing of 1782.

12

In 1791 the missing lowest sections of the outer ribs were added, finally completing the

Bridge to its original specification, when the trustees “ordered that the Ironwork at the Bridge

be improved by finishing out the back Iron Ribs to support the Crosspieces and strengthen the

Bridge.” 13

There are 10 castings, one for each of the five frames on each quadrant, and they

4 IGMT 1981.20

5 British Library, Map Library, Kings Topography. BL/ML.KT.36/26d

6 IGMT 1992.12918

7 Abraham Darby‟s cash book 1771-81 (IGMT 1993.3374); IGMT 1992.12918

8 Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 3rd December 1784, SRO.3689-98

9 Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 8th December 1786, SRO.3689-98

10 Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 8th June 1787, SRO.3689-98

11 Science Museum, Photo 31936

12 IGMT 1984.6134.1

13 Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 3rd June 1791, SRO.3689-98


20

are the only hollow castings on the Bridge. 14

Two other views had been published before

1791, based on the 1782 Rooker engraving and its accompanying engineering drawing, and

both incorrectly showing theses missing ribs in place (Thomas Frederick Burney of 1784, and J Baker of c1795).

From 1792 to 1799 a series of repairs were undertaken to the abutments, starting with the

south abutment in December 1792. 15

Further repairs were ordered in 1798, both to “the

Abutments of Bridge & Ironwork”. 16

Theses included iron tie bars through the abutments,

which were noted by Simon Goodrich on 8th

December 1799, 17

and by the Swedish industrialist Svedenstierna, who visited in 1802-3.

18

2.3.2 Phase 2. 1801-1820

1802: The south abutment demolished and replaced by two timber arches.

The abutment on the south side continued to cause problems and it was decided to remove it

and build two land arches in its place. In December 1800 the trustees ordered 2,000 ft of

3-inch oak planks for a temporary bridge to be erected once the south abutment had been

demolished, 19

which was started the following March. The contractor, Mr Thomas Thomas,

removed the whole of the south abutment from the outer vertical right back to a line with the

far wall of the accommodation arch.

In early May 1801 the Trustees urgently investigated a scheme proposed by Henry Williams

to hold the abutments apart by an underwater strut of timber, but rejected it a week later on

12th May, when they ordered “40 Tons of Good Tim

r.”

20 This was in addition to the 2,000 ft

of oak planks ordered in December the previous year. They also ordered substantial

foundations to be made in order to turn the back wall of the accommodation arch into the new

end of the south abutment. On 11th

July 1802 Paul Sandby Munn drew the Bridge (Fig 14)

while the south abutment was being demolished. 21

The temporary wooden way can be seen

on the left of the sketch; this was before the stone piers were built and more substantial timber installed in 1803.

Fig 14: Demolition of the south abutment in progress, Paul Sandby Munn‟s sketch of 11th

July 1802.

Victoria & Albert Museum

14

Ultrasound test undertaken for the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, 1st July 1996

15 Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 7th December 1792, SRO.3689-98

16 Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 8th June 1798, SRO.3689-98

17 Science Museum: Goodrich Collection.

18 Svedenstierna (trans. Dellow) 1973, 71

19 Bridge Trustees‟ Minute Book, 1800-1828, December 5th 1800, SRO.6001.3697

20 Bridge Trustees‟ Minute Book, 1800-1828, SRO.6001.3697

21 Victoria & Albert Museum, E3112/1948


21

A „temporary‟ wrought iron brace was added above the upper cross stay, though it was never

removed and can still be seen today. In August 1803 the trustees ordered that two piers be

built as quickly as possible and the temporary wooden bridge over the gap be secured, though

the work was not finished until the summer of 1804 (Fig 15). The wooden deck of the new

side arches was covered with 6 inches of clay topped with ashes, while the rest of the timber

was coated with coal tar. Once the job was completed, the spare timber was sold off at auction

on 17th

August 1804. 22

The timber had been supplied by the Coalbrookdale Company, who also supplied “2 Lots [of] Slabs”, which were iron plates to cap the inner pier.

Fig 15: Lithograph by W Smith showing the timber land arches, 1810. Shropshire County Libraries.

The ironwork of the Bridge must have already been noticeably out of plumb (built that way

rather than the result of movement), but the masonry of the new inner pier was built vertical,

requiring considerable cutting of the upper stonework to minimise the effect. The difference

was halved, with the upper portions of the ironwork being recessed into the stone blocks and

the lower parts standing proud, as they are to this day.

On 3rd

June 1808 the Trustees ordered a new oak tollgate and posts 23

, which lasted until

1852. In 1812 they ordered “that a Table of Tolls be put up at the Iron Bridge gate.” 24

The

painted cast iron tollboard listed the charges set out in the original 1776 Act of Parliament and

remained in place until 1950, until being re-sited in its original location in 1974 when the Tollhouse was restored. In the early 1980s it was moved inside the Tollhouse.

25

2.3.3 Phase 3. 1821-1844

1821-3: The timber arches replaced with cast iron arches.

1835-6: Tollhouse enlarged.

c1836: Block of buildings erected on the upstream side of the north abutment.

The wooden land arches had only been intended as a temporary measure, and in April 1819

the Coalbrookdale Company provided an estimate for replacing the timber side arches with

cast iron. However, their price was higher than expected and the work was not approved until December 1820. Work began in the summer of 1821, and was completed when the new iron

22

Bridge Trustees‟ Minute Book, 1800-1828, SRO.6001.3697 23

Bridge Trustees‟ Minute Book, 1800-1828. SRO.6001.3697 24

Bridge Trustees‟ Minute Book, 1800-1828. December 4th

1812, SRO.6001.3697 25

IGMT 1981.1881


22

arches were painted in 1823. 26

Though restricted to half the width of the carriageway, the

Bridge had remained open to traffic throughout the work.”27

The survey of 1999-2000 noted

columns of small stones next to the ironwork in the upper levels, which is the infill of the spaces left by the removal of the wider timber struts.

On 17th

July 1835 the Trustees of the Iron Bridge ordered that the Tollhouse should be

enlarged, doubling its length and adding an extra storey. The work was completed by June

1836. 28

A substantial group of buildings was also in place by 1837 at the northern end of the

Bridge. A watercolour (Fig 16, below) looking downstream from the Wharfage shows these

buildings. 29

The removal of this block in 1946 resulted in a series of changes to the walls by

using different materials, which were later altered again to improve the setting.

Fig 16: The block of buildings on the north end of the Bridge and the iron land arches, 1837.

Watercolour by J Fidlor (attrib). IGMT

On 6th

December 1839 the Trustees ordered that gas lamps be added to the Bridge, one on

either side of the toll gate and one on the centre of the upstream parapet. Apart from paintings

and engravings done before 1800, there are no images showing lamps on the Bridge before

1856. 30

These early views may all have copied the lamp from the 1782 engineering drawing 31

, which had included lamps because their cost was allowed for in the original estimate of

1775, though it was not until 1786 that the records first include the instruction to install two

lamps at the crown of the Bridge. In the 1839 order there is no mention of a lamp on the

downstream parapet, nor any later photographic evidence of there ever having been a lamp on

this side. However, the overhanging deck plates at the crown were made with a hole for a lamp support. Gas bills appeared in the Bridge account books from 1841 at six-monthly

26

Bridge Trustees‟ Minute Book, 1800-1828. SRO.6001.3697 27

Transactions of the Newcomen Society, VI (1925-6), 3 28


IGMT 1978.73 30

see below IGMT.SSMT/36 for 1856 31

IGMT SS/MT.43


23

intervals, starting at £4/10/0. 32

A photograph of c.1900 confirms there was a gas lamp at the crown of the Bridge, on the upstream parapet.

33

2.3.4 Phase 4. 1845-1901

1845, 1861 and 1879: Repairs to the two iron land arches.

1880: Girders added to the inner land arch.

By 1890: Tilting of the inner uprights on the north side and deck bearers no longer in a

straight line, changing angle above the inner uprights.

Phase 4 is characterised by further substantial repairs to the iron land arches, and some minor

repairs to the main arch itself. Particularly during the later part of this Phase there is good

photographic evidence. There is also increasing evidence of movement and other changes to the structure.

The Trustees‟ Minute Book for 5th

December 1845 reports that “... considerable repairs have

been needed to the Land Arches which have been done by the Coalbrookdale Company, the

Surveyor be ordered to pay the amount of their a/c £95/17/2.” This must have been for the

first series of the many bolted-on plates. 34

Almost exactly a year later, a further bill from the

Coalbrookdale Company was settled at £9/16/5 “for repairing the Bridge”. The exact work is

unspecified, but will have been for ironwork. 35

In 1852 new wooden tollgates and posts were installed at a cost of £11/3/0,

36 this tollgate surviving until at least 1896.

On April 19th

1861 the Trustees agreed to further repairs to the land arches “provided the

estimate cost thereof do not exceed the sum of £100.” 37

This involved the addition of further

plates, plus the horizontal spacers between the ribs on the inner land arch (Fig 17, below left).

Repairs to the land arches were undertaken again in 1879, during which plates were cut to fit around the horizontal spacers inserted in the 1860s.

Fig 17: Strengthening plates and spacers added to the inner land arch in 1861.

Fig 18: One of the 1880 I-beam girders inserted between the ribs of the inner land arch.

In 1880 further repairs were made, comprising the addition of girders to the inner land arch

(Fig 18, above). Four girders were provided and installed by the Coalbrookdale Company,

one between each of the ribs of the inner land arch, for £125/10/-. The ironwork comprised “4 Cast Iron Girders 32ft long; 2 cast Iron distance Pieces; 22 Heads for Railings; 3 Brackets,

32


IGMT 1981.1569 34



Bridge Proprietors Minute Book, 1841-1861, SRO.6001.3694 37

Bridge Trustees‟ Minute Book, 1830-1861, SRO.6001.3698


24

1 cast Iron Plate; also wrought iron Plates; glands, Cramps ties; Railings, Brass and lead for

fixing the whole; Delivered and fixed in position.” 38

Messrs Nevitts undertook the associated

work repairing and replacing masonry as necessary for a further £126/15/3. An engineer‟s

report of 1923 by Mott, Hay & Anderson refers to these large beams being 1ft 9in at the

centre and 1ft 6in at their ends. 39

This was confirmed by survey in 1999-2000, which showed

that the bottom of each beam is straight, while the top is curved, accounting for the difference

in the dimensions. The profile must have followed the arching of the road deck, though

buckling has continued as the beams no longer come into direct contact with the deck plates.

Each beam is individually identified using a numeral cast on to the vertical face; these run

from 1 to 4, starting from the downstream end, unlike the ribs of the main arch which by convention are described as running from A to E starting from upstream.

1880s and 1890s photographs confirm the slight buckling of the road deck over the inner land

arch, 40

the tilting back of the outer verticals of the main arch on the south quadrant, and the

fractured base plate on the south side between frames D and E (for example in the Francis

Frith photograph No.13017, taken before 1886). By 1895 one could see in photographs that

land instability on the Tontine side was thrusting against the centre of the abutment, causing

the inner verticals to snap just above the upper horizontal cross stays. This in turn caused the

main deck bearers to fracture at the top of the inner verticals resulting in a slight buckle of the

previously straight beams. 41

Many of the decorative radials were also fractured by this thrust, but only on the north quadrant.

An earthquake on 17th

December 1896 allowed trapped tension to be released and the base

plates dipped, possibly due to compacting strata. As a result the deck beams above the inner

verticals have a more pronounced kink than before and the upper sections of the verticals

begin to lean back. This can be seen in photographs of 1897, one of which (Fig 19) clearly shows that the deck beams are no longer in a straight line.

42

Fig 19: Early evidence of the deck beams buckling above the inner vertical, 1897. The arrows locate the change

of angle. IGMT.1981.53

38

Expenditure for the repair of the Iron Bridge, 1861-1881, SRO.6001.3695 39

IGMT 1991.2606 40

IGMT 1982.2199 41

IGMT.1986.11909 42

IGMT.1981.53


25

2.3.5 Phase 5. 1902-1933

1902: Water main installed next to the downstream railing; deck end repairs, and lower

horizontal and diagonal straps added to the main arch.

1923: Footpaths installed on the road deck to limit large vehicles passing.

1926-7: Brackets added to the top of the inner verticals, extra straps applied to the

horizontal braces on the lower ribs, 12 brackets added and two ogee brackets replaced.

This phase involved an intensive series of sometimes

quite substantial repairs to the main arch, as well as the installation of services across the Bridge.

In 1902 a large rectangular water main was installed

running across the Bridge on the downstream footpath

(Fig 20, left). Soon after, on Sunday 24th

August, about

30ft of palisading on the downstream side of the north

quadrant fell into the river, taking many of the deck

plate ends with it, probably caused by vibrations during

the laying of a water main. 43

An earthquake in 1896 may also have been a contributing factor.

Fig 20. The riveted water main on the downstream footpath seen

here in 1962, which wasn‟t removed until 1972. IGMT

In a detail of a much wider view, temporary wooden fencing can be seen during the repairs of

1902 (Fig 21, below). 44

The damaged deck plates were repaired with new ends that could be

bolted on (Fig 22). Several other ends were repaired at the same time, all identifiable by three bolts underneath each repaired deck plate just inside frames E and A.

Fig 21 (left): Repairs in progress, 1902. Wooden planks extend outside the Bridge and a temporary fence can be

seen against the far railing. IGMT.1978.6322. Fig 22 (right): Drawing of bolt-on ends for damaged deck plates,

1902. IGMT.1972.13 (detail)

43

Wellington Journal, 30th August 1902 44

IGMT.1986.6322


26

As a result of a report by Sir Benjamin Baker submitted on 8th

October 1902, the

Coalbrookdale Company made the new ends for the damaged deck plates, fitted straps above

the base plates, and also sleeving for the diagonal brace. 45

No copy of Baker‟s report has yet

been found, but engineering drawings of the repairs survive in the IGMT archives and have

been identified with the historic fabric, such as the one above showing the deck-end repair,

and (Figs 23 and 24 below) showing the massive horizontal straps installed near the base plates. The outer straps are of steel retaining cast iron spacer blocks.

Fig 23 (left): Coalbrookdale Company engineering drawing for straps and spacers, 1902. IGMT.1972.12

Fig 24 (right): The straps still in situ in 2010. Author

The old gas lamp and bracket on the Tollhouse were replaced in 1921 by a new one, and that

same year the wooden gate was replaced with the iron one that survives today. Raised kerbs

were installed for the first time in 1923. This followed an engineering survey in March that

year by Basil Mott, which advised that “there was some risk in using the bridge for vehicular

traffic”. 46

As a result the roadway width was reduced to 14ft by the insertion of two 5ft-wide

footpaths on either side. Later photographs confirm that the footpath on the downstream side

was laid around the existing water main, thus partly burying it. The report says there was a

gas main within the road deck alongside the water main. This must have been a second gas

main, as the gas lamp on the upstream balustrade had a supply which was installed soon after

December 1839. The 1923 report also provides a great deal of information about the survival of the 1902 repairs and ongoing issues with the stability of the abutments.

A proposal of 27th

August 1923 to the Bridge Trustees from Stuart Thompson of

Peterborough suggested “a thorough consolidation of the piers [i.e. abutments] by driving

liquid cement grout under pressure into the core of the piers”. Thompson identified the north

abutment as being the most urgent. Borehole tests drilled horizontally into the south abutment

in November 1999 confirmed the existence of cement, though there is no evidence in the archives that the 1923 recommendation was carried out.

47

The newly-formed Newcomen Society visited the Bridge on Thursday 19th

June 1924 and

“great anxiety was expressed for the fate of the bridge when it was learnt that it had been proposed to pull it down and replace it by a modern structure in reinforced concrete.”

48

45

IGMT.1972.11, 13 and 15, Coalbrookdale Company order No 4388 46

Basil Mott (Mott, Hay & Anderson), 19th March 1923. IGMT.1991.2606 (page 12) 47

Report of Repairs to the Bridge, Signposts, etc, SRO.6001.3701 48

Transactions of the Newcomen Society, IV (1923-4), 110


27

In 1926-7, brackets were added to the top of the inner verticals (Fig 25), extra straps were

added to the horizontal braces on the lower ribs, and two ogee brackets were replaced. This

followed a report by Luther Griffiths who also discovered “at least ninety fractures …

excluding those that had been repaired previously.” 49

Though the road deck had been

narrowed by the insertion of footpaths, the increasing weight of motor traffic on the Bridge

required the fractured deck beams to be reinforced with bolted-on cast-iron saddles in 1927.

A collection of reports and engineering drawings by the Brymbo Steel Company (at this time

part of the Coalbrookdale Company) in the Shropshire Archives cover repairs which were

carried out over the winter of 1926-7 and completed by mid-January. The content of these

drawings 50

is as follows:

a. 11th August 1926, showing new steel straps to be added just above each of the upper

horizontal straps of the main arch. Made in two halves and joined at the centre by a bolt,

the drawing notes that six sets were required. They were supplied by Wright‟s Forge in

Tipton and were erected 6th

to 9th

October 1926 by two men from Brymbo, Wrexham.

b. Also 11th

August 1926, showing a simple pair of plates to be joined by two 14½” bolts for

the upstream diagonal on the south quadrant, and also a detail for a new bolt at the top of the diagonals of the north quadrant. These were fixed on site by Messrs J E Green.

c. 28th January 1927, showing a light-weight replacement for two of the ogee brackets, to be

made in wrought iron. The flat bar has a cross section of 5” x ¾” instead of the original

section of 5” x 2¾” cast iron. This proved to be too thin and they have since buckled. The

brackets, bolts and clamps were made at Brymbo, and erected between 3rd

and 15th

January 1927.

d. 8th November 1926, showing cast iron seating cleats or brackets for the tops of the inner

verticals (see Fig 25, below). The instruction is for 10 pairs, with 60 hexagonal bolts to fix

them. Griffiths also suggested that “struts of 4” x 4” oak be fixed between the main

girders and resting on the brackets recently put in, to prevent any movement of the girders

sideways.” These timbers can still be seen at the level of the brackets. The order also includes a sketch for a clamp to fix the circles to be “put in 12 positions”.

Fig 25 (left): Cast iron brackets inserted in 1926. Fig 26 (right): A bolt that was identified as missing in 1926

is still missing today. Author 2000

49


Included with SRO.6001.3701


28

In a letter of 12th

October 1926 Luther Griffiths noted that the upper bolt (Fig 26 above,

arrowed) from the crown joint of frame C was missing. Griffiths also recorded that the inner

verticals were out of plumb: “... the downstream column „town end‟ is 11” out of plumb; the

upstream column 7½”; the downstream column „station‟ end 6”, and the upstream column 7”.

This suggests there is a thrust from both sides of the River, and also settlement on the „town‟

side.” 51

The upstream columns were measured again in 1948 and 1980, and showed this

tendency was continuing – the town side in 1948 was 9½” and had increased to 11¾” by 1980; the station side had reduced to 6½” in 1948, and further still to 5¼” in 1980.

52

Between April 1927 and March 1934, the span of the Bridge was measured at approximately

6-month intervals. This was undertaken by Luther Griffiths, who made seven measurements

showing a shrinking over that time of the upstream span by ½”, and by ¼” to the downstream

span.” 53

In 1932 one of the diagonal members (south quadrant, downstream half and low

down) broke away from the vertical, although this was not a new fracture. 54

2.3.6 Phase 6. 1934-1949

1934: The Bridge designated an Ancient Monument and closed to vehicular traffic.

1937: Repairs to the ogee bottoms carried out.

1946: By February the lamp bracket on the upstream parapet had gone. Buildings on the

north end of the Bridge demolished in May in preparation for a replacement bridge.

This phase covers the Bridge being closed to vehicular traffic in 1934 and designated as a

Scheduled Ancient Monument (SA106), though pedestrian tolls continued until 1950. A

replacement bridge was proposed in 1937 to run alongside the original and associated

boreholes were drilled, but the war intervened and apart from the demolition of the buildings

on the north bank in 1946 nothing came of this proposal.

In 1937 repairs were carried out to the ogee bottoms. 55

These included the addition of various straps that have been added near the circles and at the bottom of the ogees.

By February 1946 the lamp bracket on the upstream parapet had gone. 56

In May that year the

buildings on the north end of the Bridge were demolished. This was intended to make way for

a new bridge, “plans for which had to be shelved on account of the war.” 57

The plan for the

new bridge shows it starting from the land occupied by the buildings next to the north

abutment and crossing at an angle so the south end meets the road just south of the Tollhouse.

This would have required the demolition of the Tollhouse and of the property below the

Tollhouse known as Station House or 67 Bower Yard, the latter being purchased by

Shropshire County Council on 10th

June 1947. 58

An aerial photograph of 1949 59

shows the

bare plot of land where the Chemist and other buildings were demolished in May 1946

(arrowed in Fig 27, overleaf). The two masonry arches of the Tontine vaults within this area cannot be seen. From later rebuilding work it seems the stones were simply left and buried.

51


IGMT Archives, DOE 1980, and IGMT.1981.119 53

Report of Repairs to the Bridge, Signposts, etc, SRO.6001.3701; correspondence 8th

and 16th

May

1931 54

Report of Repairs to the Bridge, Signposts, etc, SRO.6001.3701; correspondence 19th April 1932

55 IGMT.1980.447

56 IGMT.1982.2209

57 Wellington Journal, 18

th May 1946

58 SRO.4437.10

59 Aerofilms photograph No.A24217, IGMT.1993.7888


29

Boreholes were taken in 1947 as part of the new bridge proposals, 60

and in 1948 Shropshire County Council began to take yearly measurements of the span.

61

Fig 27: A 1949 photograph confirms the demolition of the buildings on the end of the Bridge. Aerofilms

2.3.7 Phase 7. 1950-1971

1950: Bridge repainted prior to ownership passing from the Trustees to Shropshire County

Council. Pedestrian tolls removed October.

1966: Report suggesting instability.

On 12th

October 1950 the trustees handed over the Bridge to Shropshire County Council and

it became free to pedestrians. A manuscript note in the Shropshire Archives, not dated, says

“In a reply to British Iron & Steel Research Association, 25 Feb 53, GCC writes: Ironbridge

last painted 1950. 3 coats of bituminous paint, each of a different shade finish with black.”

Plus a footnote: “Other correspondence from Davey refers to Red Lead, supplied by ICI;

Undercoat Melanoid Heavy Brown; Final Melanoid No 1 Black.” 62

A measured drawing (undated but filed between other items dated 26th

April and 21st May

1962, so assumed to be from that year) is annotated “at midspan deck is 5¾” lower at the

upstream side / at the two quarter spans the deck is almost balanced from parapet to

parapet”. 63

In January 1968 boreholes were undertaken by the

Cementation Company for Shropshire County Council.

Borehole A was made on 12th

January from the back of

the north abutment starting from road level. Borehole B

was made on 18th

January from deck level, through the

frames and then through the base plate of the north

abutment 40ft below (which accounts for the circular

hole in the deck plate, seen at the top of Fig 28).

Borehole C was made on 23rd

January from deck level

down through the south abutment.

Fig 28: The hole in the deck plate for Borehole B, seen looking up from the towpath. Author, 2010

60

SRO.4437.9-10 61

Blackwell 1985, 102 62

SRO.4437.9 63

SRO.4437.9


30

The results from boreholes B and C showed “that the abutments consist mainly of sandstone

boulders with concrete infilling. The proportions of rock and concrete vary, but the cores

indicate that the sandstone boulders are the major constituent.” 64

A report by J. A. Williams in October 1969 noted the effect of the “inward squeezing of the

abutments” and recommended lightening the north abutment and anchoring each of the

abutments to the underlying rock by stressed cables. The alternative solution of using a

reinforced concrete underwater strut was explored but at the time dismissed as being less

effective and more expensive than the cables. In the event, the lightening of the north

abutment and the construction of the underwater strut was approved on 15th

March 1971 in a

letter from Julian Amery, Minister for Housing and Construction, with the agreement that on

completion of the repairs the Bridge would be taken into the Department of the

Environment‟s care. The Tollhouse was purchased by the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust for

a nominal sum from Shropshire County Council and opened for sale of souvenirs.

2.3.8 Phase 8. 1972-1979

1972: Laying of new services within the footpaths; lightening the north abutment.

Photogrammetric survey.

1973: South half of the reinforced concrete strut cast below the water line.

1974. North half of the strut cast below the water line; Tollhouse restored.

1975. Tollhouse re-opened; Bridge road deck material renewed, selected masonry blocks

replaced and the stonework re-pointed.

In the late 1960s it had been recognised that the Bridge was close to collapse as the banks

were being pushed ever closer to each other. The agreed solution was to hold the abutments

apart by the insertion of a reinforced concrete strut below the water, with work beginning in

1972. Some of the work was done by Shropshire County Council‟s own labour but the below-

water work was done by Tarmac Construction Ltd. The north abutment was first emptied of

its rubble infill and strengthened with a hollow concrete box. In 1973 and 1974 the

underwater strut was cast in coffer dams, a third at a time, and a concrete facing rose up to

within a metre of the base plates. A BBC film recorded much of this work. 65

The Tollhouse

was used as an information point about the works. The final stage, in 1975, was to strip off

the asphalt road material down to the iron deck plates and replace it with a lighter material.

On completion in November 1975 the Bridge was taken into guardianship by the Directorate

of Ancient Monuments & Historic Buildings, precursors of English Heritage.

In April 1972 Shropshire County Council began Stage 1 of the repairs, burying water, gas

electricity and telephone services within the footpaths, and excavating the fill out of the north

abutment to reduce the pressures on the ironwork (Fig 30, overleaf). The accommodation arch

was repaired and strengthened (Figs 29 and 32, overleaf). The larger space between this arch

and the towpath face of the abutment was emptied of its rubble fill and reinforced with a

hollow concrete box to reduce the pressures on the ironwork (Fig 31, overleaf). This stage

was completed by mid October. A ladder was fixed inside, though the manhole providing

access has not been located despite a „cat scan‟ by Ironbridge Archaeology in January 2000.

In September 1972 the Department of the Environment commissioned Plowman Craven of

Harpenden to take photogrammetry images and generate a drawing of the upstream elevation

from them. No other drawings are known to have come from this survey, though the

photographs survive in IGMT‟s archives.

64

SRO.4437.9 65

IGMT Archives 1995.661


31

Fig 29 (top left): A large crack revealed in the accommodation arch, April. Fig 30 (top right): Excavation of the

north abutment, May. Fig 31 (bottom left): the concrete box filling the void, June. Fig 32 (bottom right): Tying

the ashlar to the reinforcement with stainless steel rods, April. G Weaver 1972

Under Stage 2 a reinforced concrete strut was cast about 4.5m (15ft) below water level,

beginning with the southern side in 1973. The centre of the strut was pinned to bedrock with

stressed anchor rods that penetrated a further 13.5m (45ft). 66

The work was done over two

summer seasons from within separate coffer dams – one each year, the metal sheet piling

being cut off at the base once the work was completed. The scheme was designed by

consultants Sandford, Fawcett, Wilton & Bell and executed by Tarmac Construction Ltd.

Contractor‟s photographs (Figs 33 to 35 below) show the southern half in June, August and

November 1973. 67

Fig 33 (left): The coffer dam looking out from the south bank, June 1973. Fig 34 (centre): Additional bracing

inside by the south abutment, August 1973. Fig 35 (right): As well as the horizontal strut 4.5m below the base

plates, a concrete facing rose up the abutments stopping four courses from the top, November 1973. Tarmac

Construction

66

SRO.4437/11 67

IGMT.1987.598, 596 and 593


32

The remaining section of the reinforced concrete strut was fabricated across the north half of

the river bed, beginning in April and being completed in late August 1974. A number of

railings were found in the river bed – the ones that had fallen off in 1902 – as well as the

broken-off deck plate ends, one of which was presented to the Ironbridge Gorge Museum. At

the author‟s request a sample was cut off from a corner of this plate for metallurgical analysis

in May 1988, undertaken by Monitor of Stonehouse, Gloucester.

Ownership of the Tollhouse was transferred from Shropshire County Council to the

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, who had opened it from 1972 (Fig 36, below) prior to a

major restoration in time for 1975. The work involved realigning the railing to allow a

window to become a door; remounting the original tollboard in its previous location; inserting

new windows into the previously bricked-up openings; putting tie rods either side of the

central chimney which had been lowered to the roof line; and taking down and re-erecting

brickwork around the original door (Fig 37). Inside was an exhibition about the history of the Bridge, including the BBC film directed by Ray Sutcliff.

68 A copy is in the IGMT archives.

Fig 36 (left): The Tollhouse used as an Information Centre in 1972. Private collection

Fig 37 (right): After restoration, summer 1975. IGMT

In September 1975 Shropshire County Council‟s staff removed the asphalt and waterproofed

the gaps between the deck plates (Figs 38 and 39, below). The waterproofing was done with a

mixture of “two parts pitch extended polyurethane or polysulphide applied by gun. Nitroseal

PX220 polyurethane or Evode Polysulphide”. 69

Fig 38 (left): Removing the

road fill. Private collection

Fig 39 (right): Laying the

new surface. IGMT

68

IGMT.1993.736 and IGMT.1995.661 69

SRO.4437/9


33

In October the pavements were edged in cast iron using a pattern from IGMT‟s collection and

cast at Glynwed Foundries in Coalbrookdale.70

The final element of the 1975 work was the

re-pointing and selective replacement of masonry to the south piers and abutment and in

November the Department of the Environment took the Bridge into Guardianship.71

Stages 1

and 2 had cost a total of £148,068.18. 72

The arches of the Tontine vaults were rebuilt in 1976

using the original stones recovered from the rubble of the 1946 demolition and the new

viewing area that was created above was edged with a brick wall. In 1977 on the Tollhouse side the concrete steps down to the river were rebuilt in brick.

It had been intended that Stage 3 would include the repainting of the Bridge, but as this might

run into the Bicentenary year of 1979 and would cover the Bridge in sheeted scaffolding, in

1978 it was decided to postpone this phase until after the Bicentenary (see below). Work

undertaken early in 1979 included the replacement of missing arrow-head dogbars on the

Bridge balustrades, a top dressing to the road surface, and the replacement of the original,

though realigned, railings by the Tollhouse in mild steel on a stone capping course, removing

the railings that survived since the 1823 alterations.73

Prince Charles as Patron of the Museum

celebrated the Bicentenary on 1st July 1979, paying a symbolic halfpenny toll before crossing

the Bridge. The last work of the year was to replace the brick walls in stone that had been erected in late 1976 on the parapet at the north end of the Bridge.

74

2.3.9 Phase 9. 1980-1998

1980: Bridge repainted after sandblasting off old paint down to bare metal.

Survey of fractures.

It was 30 years since the last time the Bridge was painted. Scaffolding was erected beginning

on 9th

April 1980 for Stage 3, the final element of the repairs programme that had started eight

years earlier. The contract was let to JD Tighe & Co (Midlands) Ltd with Ian Hume as the

engineer for the Department of the Environment 75

and work was completed by mid-

December. The paint was blasted off to bare metal with pressurised water jets and treated with

five coats of paint: 1st, an Epoxy Wet steel primer coat (colour, red oxide); 2nd, a zinc

phosphate Epoxy Ester undercoat (yellow); 3rd, a zinc phosphate Epoxy Ester undercoat

(green); 4th, a Micaceous Iron Oxide, Pure Phenolic Tung Oil (grey); and 5th, a Micaceous

Iron Oxide, Pure Phenolic Tung Oil (black).” 76

In fact the final coat was a metallic dark grey with many variations in shade, giving the finished Bridge a blotched effect.

A full record of the fractures was made, 80 being identified and photographed by Ian Hume‟s

team. No repairs were done to the main arch other than to replace one broken clamp. The

repair work to the two land arches involved the removal and replacement of a number of steel

plates put on as repairs many years ago and which had corroded sufficiently to fracture the

bolts holding them. Also replaced for cosmetic reasons were 235 dogbars (the small

spearheads between railings), four finials to main railing uprights, two broken sections of the

centre railing embellishment on the upstream side and all of the railing stabilisers on the two

land arches. One broken railing on the downstream side which had been replaced earlier with

2 steel flats welded together was replaced with a square steel bar.77

70

SRO.4437/10 71

IGMT.IB 72-89 72

IGMT. IB (R) 73

IGMT. B/2/2 and IB 72-89 74

IGMT. B/2/2 75

IGMT.B/2/2 76

Hume, I, 1980 „Report on the Repairs and Repainting of the Iron Bridge‟, DOE 77

ibid


34

In February 1990 Wrekin Council carried out landscaping improvements to the area around

the war memorial, adding a low brick wall topped by railings, and resurfacing the path

through the accommodation arch with cobbled sets.

When Telford became a new Unitary Authority in 1998 Shropshire County Council handed

the Bridge over to Telford & Wrekin Council on 31st March. A small inspection scaffold was

erected in November to investigate claims of new fractures, though none were found.

2.3.10 Phase 10. 1999-2007

1999-2000: Bridge repainted, packing added to support deck plates, selected masonry

blocks replaced; full historic building survey and analysis done.

2001: Railing posts strengthened with carbon fibre sheets; bolts on swan-necks replaced.

Over the winter of 1999-2000 a restoration programme was implemented to prepare the

Bridge for the new millennium. It was fully recorded for the first time and the ironwork was

repainted. Towards the end of the decade a further series of reports were commissioned by

English Heritage, leading up to this Conservation Plan.

In May 1999 a temporary though substantial scaffold was erected to determine future work,

which was to include selective replacement of masonry blocks, the replacement of missing

packing below the deck beams, and an application of two coats of paint to the entire structure.

A photogrammetry survey was done in early September by Plowman Craven Associates of

Harpenden, which was then enhanced by English Heritage‟s Metric Survey Team (Fig 40).

An associated Historic Building Survey, Record and Analysis programme was commissioned

from IGMT, which included a confirmation that the original colour was dark grey (see entry

for 1787). The core elements of this record are included within Appendix 5. In late September

a complete scaffold was erected (Fig 41) for the repainting programme under the direction of

Ian Wilson of Firmingers, Worcester. Ironbridge Archaeology produced a detailed record of

the structure. Painting was almost completed by the end of the year, in most cases having been limited to the application of a new undercoat and top coat.

Fig 40 (left): An image from the metric survey by Bill Blake of English Heritage, 2000.

Fig 41 (right): The Bridge under scaffold in late September 1999. Author

On 15th

January 2000 new nylon packing (Polyethelene PE300) was inserted between the

deck bearers and deck plates, wherever thought necessary. In March Derbyshire masonry

contractors Dimbylow Crump extracted sandstone from the original quarry in Ladywood

some 200m up the hillside above the south bank and replaced weakened blocks on the top

courses of the main arch abutment and piers. The scaffold was removed by Easter, after which

minor repairs were done to the railings, which included the casting of two new swan necks for

the main arch to replace those that were badly corroded at the bottom. Two bays of railings


35

were replicated and subject to destructive testing off site. Failure occurred at the points where the fixing bolts passed through the uprights and the swan neck supports.

In 2001 the fixings of the swan necks to the railings were investigated by EH revealing a history

of repairs, and an associated record was made by Ironbridge Archaeology 78

. The railings

themselves proved to be stronger than previously thought, but many of the swan neck supports at

the base of the balustrades were corroded and allowed too much play so failed the tests. Railing

posts were strengthened with carbon fibre sheets on the footpath side and all bolts fixing the swan

necks to the railing uprights were renewed. Sand and sweepings were added to the paint to give a

rough finish and resemble cast iron, so the smooth carbon fibre strips are virtually invisible.

Worn swan necks were replaced.

In October 2001 in a programme directed by Deborah Perkin, BBC2 Timewatch recorded the

construction of a half-scale model of the „large scaffold‟ shown in Elias Martin‟s watercolour

of 1779 to test its validity (Fig 42, below). Built over the canal at Blists Hill open air museum

(Fig 43) the arrangement provided the ideal lifting points for the ribs when they were

delivered by boat and lifted from below. The experiment supported the theory that in 1779 the

major castings must have been brought by river and therefore poured at Bedlam Furnaces on

the river bank 500m downstream from the Bridge, rather than at the Old Furnace in

Coalbrookdale. The „Mystery of the Iron Bridge‟ programme was broadcast on 11th

January

2002 and the „temporary‟ half-scale model remained in situ until February 2010.

Fig 42 (left): Elias Martin‟s sketch of 1779. Fig 43 (right): The half scale model over the canal at Blists Hill

Victorian Town, October 2001. The photo has been reversed for this comparison. Author

2.3.10 Phase 10. 2008-2011

2008: Rope survey of fractures. Underwater strut surveyed.

2009: Rope survey of wedges. Inclinometers installed to record land movement.

2011: Deck plate wedges renewed within upstream footpath.

On 8th

and 9th

September 2008 an underwater inspection was done by Hemsley Orrell

Partnership of Hove to assess the condition of the reinforced concrete strut and review the

possibility of re-routing water mains in an underwater crossing. 79

The concrete appeared to

be in good condition with no signs of damage due to corrosion of the reinforcing rods. Scour

was noted under the concrete slab jutting out from the bank just downstream of the south

abutment, which they recommended be addressed within five years. However, this slab is not

78

2002. Ironbridge Archaeology Report 110. The Iron Bridge Railing Survey, Record and Analysis 79

HOP Report No 12735/1


36

part of the strut, being the remains of an equipment access route for the 1973-4 work. A crossing point for the water mains was identified about 50m upstream.

On 28th

and 29th

September 2008 the Bridge was floodlit as part of the launch of the Cultural

Olympiad in the West Midlands. The event had been approved by English Heritage and no light fittings were attached to the structure.

In October 2008 a rope survey was done by Vertical Technology Ltd of Emsworth to

ascertain the existence and condition of cracks in the main arch, and their findings were

further analysed in a report of December 2009 by Conisbee Consulting Structural Engineers

of London. They put netting round one fractured radial on frame C to stop it falling into the

river. Comparing a photographic survey of 80 fractures identified in 1980, in Vertical

Technology‟s report they concluded there were 38 additional defects. Though the record is

valuable as a condition statement for 2008, a comparison with a detailed photographic survey

of 1999/2000 by IGMT would have shown that none of these are new fractures (apart from

one possible crack on frame C), being mostly original joints between castings where there is

now some slight evidence of rusting. They also mistakenly report „heavy pitting‟ to all metal

elements, a feature of the air surface of all open sand castings and not a new defect. Conisbee

recommended filling all the cracks either with and epoxy resin or an elastomeric polymer such as Belzona 2111 prior to repainting.

Vertical Technology undertook a further rope survey in May 2009 to inspect the restraint

wedges protruding below the deck plates (Fig 44, below). They reported in June and the results

were analysed by Conisbee in September. Though not recognised in the above reports, the

original purpose of the wedges was to align the deck plates, and while every deck plate was

cast with 16 holes for possible wedges many of them did not need to be used. Many do not

engage directly with the deck bearer and it is likely they never did. However, the engineers

believe the wedges provide a lateral restraint for the main frames of the Bridge at the upper

level, and that their absence creates a threat for the stability, particularly of fame A in the event

of the structure being hit by flood debris. Given this premise, English Heritage agreed it would

be prudent to replace all the „defective‟ wedges relating to frame A, the work beginning in

January 2011 for completion by April. Work was done from a trench in the footpath over frame

A and the wedges were replaced in pure iron supplied by Legg Bros of Ettingshall. The

contract was directed by Treasure & Son of Ludlow and the wedges installed by Barr & Grosvenor of Wolverhampton.

Fig 44: May 2009 rope survey, and the 2011 contract to replace defective wedges. Author

In 2009 Telford & Wrekin Council installed six inclinometers in boreholes, three on each bank

around the Bridge. Monitoring since then shows small but continuing land movement on both

banks towards the river of around 2-3mm in 18 months at a depth approximately level with the

base plates. The results are so far unpublished but elements have been made available by Neal

Rushton for this report. The 1972 concrete box within the north abutment does not stop the

movement – in fact the whole box is subject to this pressure which will continue to be exerted on


37

the main arch through the horizontal stays. It was this pressure that caused most of the historical fractures on the north quadrant.

2.4 The wider historical context

2.4.1 The Shropshire Coalfield

It was fortuitous that the raw materials of the Shropshire Coalfield combined to make such

good cast iron. The ironmasters of the 18th

Century were not aware of the chemistry, but their

empirical knowledge and experience allowed them to succeed where others could not. Trying

to smelt iron 30 miles away with a different coal that produced a more sulphurous coke

simply did not work. The clod coal found in abundance near the surface around the Gorge

gave the region a virtual monopoly until about 1760. However, the coke iron was not initially

suitable to converting to wrought iron, which was where the big demand lay. It took many

more years of experimenting in Coalbrookdale by Abraham Darby I‟s successors, particularly

Richard Ford and Abraham Darby II, until the process became reliable and cheaper than

charcoal smelting. Once successful the new demand led to the building of nine new coke blast

furnaces in the region between 1750 and 60, including Bedlam Furnaces where the large

elements of the Bridge were cast.

However, once the easily-won minerals along the banks of the Gorge were worked out, the

seams were followed northwards in the Shropshire Coalfield, where they became deeper and

required steam pumping and winding machinery to be profitable. Coalbrookdale reached its

zenith around 1820, after which it began to be eclipsed by South Wales, Birmingham and the Black County, and the Northeast of England.

2.4.2 Spies, artists and tourists

By 1800 the Gorge was the most industrialised area in the world and proved fascinating for

industrial spies (including the Rochefoucault brothers and Svedensternia) commissioned to

learn the secrets, and artists eager to capture the theatre of the fire and smoke that filled the

skies (among them Turner, de Loutherbourg and Cotman). Tourists flocked to the area. They

all saw drama, power and excitement, positive terms that describe what we would recognise

today more negatively as pollution, but that is a much more recent concept and not one they

would have recognised. (See Appendix 7 for a fuller description). In reality life expectancy in

this polluting environment was low. Abraham Darby I died at 39, his son Abraham II fared better at 52, but his grandson Abraham III the builder of the Iron Bridge died at 38.

2.4.3 Cast iron, a new material in engineering

The Bridge survived a major flood in 1795 (8.9m above summer level and so far never

exceeded), which damaged or destroyed all the other bridges in the county and caused a rush

in new orders. Cast iron as a structural material entered a new phase and demand soared. It

had initially been viewed with some suspicion as a building material, but the Bridge

withstood the 1795 flood unharmed. Many of the County‟s smaller bridges were replaced by

Thomas Telford in iron in 1795 and 1796 with ribs cast in a single piece, though for wider

spans such as Buildwas at 39.6m (Fig 45, overleaf) a new assembly system was developed

using much smaller components. In the absence of any predecessor the castings for the Iron

Bridge were over-weight and those that followed soon after were already lighter and in larger spans.

The masonry aqueduct at Longdon-on-Tern had also been swept away in the flood, to be

replaced by Telford in cast iron (Fig 46, overleaf), serving as a test bed for his work on the


38

Chirk and Pontcycyllte aqueducts of 1805. Larger furnaces were developed to meet the need

for bigger castings and experimentation led to the introduction of iron in a structural role for

buildings, starting with Ditherington Flax Mill in 1797, the first fireproof factory and

arguably the forerunner of the skyscraper. The Sunderland Bridge of 1796 was 236ft span

compared with Darby‟s 100ft, and Thomas Telford had enough confidence in the material to

propose a 600ft clear span for London Bridge in 1801.

Fig 45 (left): Buildwas Bridge, which survived until 1905. Fig 46 (right): Longdon-on-Tern aqueduct. IGMT.

Both were in cast iron by Thomas Telford in 1796 to replace structures destroyed by the floods of 1795.

2.4.4 Construction techniques in the Bridge

1779 was the first time cast iron was used structurally and on a large scale. The exposed joints

use the techniques of the carpenter, but this had been the standard technology for iron

structures for several centuries – Salisbury Cathedral spire has a partial wrought iron frame;

church turret clocks also used wrought iron frames – all with the same kind of joints we see

on the Bridge. The difference here is that one can see the joints and get close to them. The

various castings all link into each other, some passing through oversize slots in the ironwork

and fixed in position by a combination of cast-iron wedges and lead packing, by bolted blind

dovetails, or by pinned mortise and tenons. All the joints are of the types commonly found in

timber, such as dovetails, halving joints, wedges, and mortise and tenons; and every tenon is

pinned with an iron „trenail‟, similar to traditional timber-framing. However, there are also

over 200 original screw-bolts used on the Bridge, a practice rare for the time because every

screw thread and its matching nut had to be cut by hand. They can be found at the crown

joints and also on the radials where they hold each end of the blind dovetails together.

Fig 47 (left): The 1782 engraving with its explanatory text. IGMT. Fig 48 (right): The pitted surface is typical of

an open mould casting. Author 1999


39

The 1782 contemporary account on the Phillips drawing80

(Fig 47, above left) states that all

the parts were cast in open sand moulds, which is confirmed by the pitted holes visible on

what must have been the top of each casting where the gas bubbles had risen to the surface

and burst (Fig 44, above right). Some surfaces on the inner arches are very poor, which

suggests the need for parts to be made in a hurry and that Abraham Darby was trying to

contain costs by accepting castings his Company normally would have rejected. The quality

of the castings is mixed, the better ones being reserved for the two outer frames which carry the recessed wording about the Bridge being cast in Coalbrookdale.

Site investigation in 1999 revealed that while the smaller castings were made using patterns,

all the large castings were „swept up‟ (i.e. using depressions modelled straight in the sand on

the casting floor and filling them with molten iron). Trowel marks can be seen, as well as

variations in width and depth, which would not have occurred had a wooden pattern been

used. Detailed recording confirmed that each casting is slightly different, the most obvious

example being the lower rib of frame D on the north quadrant. This has been cast at a radius

slightly larger than the others, causing it to fall short at the upper levels and requiring the

difference to be compensated for by extensions to the tops of the radials and by an extra long

tenon on the circle (Fig 49, below left). Castings that were too short were packed with iron

blocks, most noticeable at the bottom of the lower ribs on the Tontine side where they sit on

the base plates (Figs 50 and 51, below centre and right).

Fig 49 (left): An extra long tenon cast on the circle to reach the mortise in the deck bearer above.

Fig 50 (centre): An iron wedge packing up the lower rib of frame B. Fig 51 (right): A wedge jacking up the rib

of frame E. All by the author, 2001

2.4.5 Record of cracks

The report on cracks in the ironwork produced by Conisbee Consulting Structural Engineers

in 2009 provides a valuable record at that date and a useful datum for future comparison.

However, the authors ignored the detailed photographic survey of 1999/2000 by IGMT taken

from the scaffold during the repainting programme, which provides multiple views of joints

and fractures and should be consulted as part of any repair programme. Of the 118 defects

Consibee identified all but one had been recorded in the latter survey. In fact the majority of

the defects are areas where the paint application was thin and rusting is now evident.

Conisbee recommend filling all the cracks either with and epoxy resin or an elastomeric

polymer such as Belzona 2111 prior to repainting. Ian Hume is sceptical of this approach,

feeling it might trap water in a space where it currently runs away freely (Hume pers com, 2011).

80

IGMT.SSMT.43


40

2.5 Management information

The ownership of the areas around the Bridge is complex (see Section 2.1 and Fig 6 on page 13), but the overall coordination is now via the World Heritage Site Steering Group.

2.5.1 Guardianship area

1975: Bridge taken into Guardianship

1976-9: The town of Ironbridge restored

The Bridge was taken into Guardianship on 29th

October

1975, the realisation of a proposal made on 15th

March four

years earlier by the Secretary of State in relation to the work

to stabilise the Bridge – by lightening the north abutment,

inserting an underwater strut between the banks, and

lightening the road deck asphalt. Between 1976 and 1979

Telford Development Corporation restored the town of

Ironbridge, including making a viewing platform opposite the

Tontine Inn. The road and pavements were re-aligned in

1978 and a bus pull-in was created in 1980. These elements

are therefore not shown on the 1975 Guardianship plan (Fig

52, left), and the bus lay-by is not shown in the GIS map used by English Heritage (Fig 53, below).

Fig 52 (left): The 1975 Guardianship plan. Fig 53 (right): The GIS base map does not show the bus lay-by

which was installed in 1980.

An EH Report on Boundary of Guardianship Area 2008 by Jonathan Lloyd of TWC and

William Du Croz of EH identified the ownership of each area though 19 captioned

photographs. However, the report incorrectly assigns all the areas on the south bank to TWC,

which are actually owned and cared for by SGCT – see page 14, paragraph 3. It also wrongly

assigns ownership of the Tollhouse (Grade II listed) and shed to TWC rather than IGMT, who

purchased it in 1971 from the owners of the time, Shropshire County Council – see page 14, paragraph 4.

The structure of the Bridge is in Guardianship (page 13), but paths that pass under or next to it

are not (see page 14, paragraph 2), including the towpath (Fig 54, overleaf), and the path

through the north abutment archway (Fig 55, overleaf), which are owned by TWC. The area

under the two land arches on the south bank are owned by SGCT. Surprisingly the railings on

the towpath that are fixed directly to the Bridge are therefore in the care of TWC, and the

shallow stores in the Tontine Vaults are owned by TWC yet they contain an exhibition about

the Bridge and the key is held by EH. More recent work to the pavement and viewing area


41

facing the Tontine has blurred the logic of the original Guardianship boundary between EH and TWC and it is recommended the situation be reviewed.

Fig 54 (left): The footpath and the railings attached to the Bridge are not part of the Guardianship area.

Fig 55 (centre): The path through the accommodation arch, the wall with the two wooden doors, and the viewing

platform above are not part of the Guardianship area. Author, 2011

Fig 56 (right): The end of the gravel marks the boundary, so some of the York flags are in the Guardianship areas and some are not. EH Report, 2008

All partners should be consulted regarding any proposed repairs, alterations and interventions

(including temporary fixtures) on the Iron Bridge itself and for any work on adjacent areas

which may affect the setting. Early pre-application discussion with EH and TWC is best

practice when proposing any works, in order to determine appropriate approaches, and

required consents and conditions. All partners (EH, TWC, SGCT and IGMT) should

communicate and be informed of proposals through the World Heritage Officer, who will

ensure that substantive issues are discussed by the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site

Steering Group.

2.5.2 All other areas

Completed in December 2010 by TWC, a draft Public Realm Design Guide deals with all

highway and hard surfaces spaces which are freely available to the public. It endorses the use

of York stone flags near the Bridge, but criticises the laying of brick paviours in pavement

bond (as they have been in the adjacent lay by), recommending instead they be laid in running

bond. It also recommends the removal of unnecessary clutter such as bollards, which is

relevant to this report because the north end of the Bridge has two rows of such bollards

which could be rationalised. However, their removal should only be considered if an

alternative method of preventing vehicles accessing the Bridge is maintained. See Appendix

1, Gazetteer. Relevant guidance is contained within the DCLG DCMS Circular on the

protection of World Heritage Sites, 2009, and in the Statement of Outstanding Value

contained within the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site Management Plan, 2001, though the latter is currently under review.


42

2.6 Gaps in the knowledge

2.6.1 Impact of instability in the Gorge

It was believed the Bridge is structurally safe thanks to the concrete strut below the water line,

the hollow north abutment, and the fact that the ironwork is essentially free-standing. This

may not be true. Instability of the Gorge has resulted in lateral thrusts to both sides, most

evident on the north quadrant, and inclinometer records taken since 2009 show there is still

some movement (see 2.6.2 below). If an accurate computer model could be produced and then

enhanced to remove all the fractures, it could replicate the original configuration. This could

be tested by introducing a variety of thrusts to see if the existing fractures do in fact emerge at

the present locations. Other scenarios could be tested to identify potential weaknesses and the

conditions that would result in the failure of the Bridge. The existing EH Metric Survey of

2000 could be used to develop a brief, though it is not considered to be accurate enough to be

used for the structural testing scenarios above. Current borehole logs from TWC‟s

geotechnical engineering department should be added to the information base to improve the

reliability of the predictions. There are earlier borehole records from 1947 and 1968,81

but

these only deal with the geology, not any movement.

The computer model might be done by a University with a Civil Engineering School or by a

specialist civil engineering contractor, and an interactive database outlined in Section 4

should be developed.

2.6.2 Geological survey

There are six inclinometers in boreholes around the Bridge installed in 2009 by TWC‟s

geotechnical engineering department, which confirm a small but continuing land movement

towards the river on both banks. This has been around 2-3mm in 18 months and at a depth

approximately level with or slightly below the base plates. Continuous accurate monitoring of the

movement is essential, but to understand the bigger picture of movement further up the hillsides

the use of LiDAR recording will be a significant addition. The Council have a base survey

against which to make future comparisons.

2.6.3 Archaeological excavations

A longitudinal excavation trench within the land arches on the south bank should reveal

evidence of the 1801 work when a substantial foundation was made for the new south

abutment. The adjoining abutment façades were surveyed and drawn in 1999 so can provide a context for this work.

On the north bank stables and storehouses were built against the abutments and retaining

walls, which were demolished in 1946. Some evidence remains in the form of beam holes in

the wall below the war memorial and excavations could reveal more information.

2.6.4 Recording the span

An agreed method for recording the span is required and the results should be integrated with

the inclinometer readings from the six boreholes drilled in 2009. Historical records82

do not

all use the same point of reference or technology. In the 1930s these were done from the inner

81

de Haan, D. 2001. The Iron Bridge, Historic Building Survey, Record & Analysis. Appendix K 82

Ibid, Appendix G


43

verticals, some 30cm back from the outer edge of the base plates, and only at the upstream

and downstream edges. However, from 1961 onwards the two diagonals were included, but

measurements were taken from the outer corners of the base plates. This latter location is

recommended for all future measurements to maintain consistency.

2.6.5 Building recording of the Tollhouse and shed

The Tollhouse was restored in 1974 though this included alterations to the façade and the

removal of a central chimney. No drawings have survived and it is recommended a full survey

of these buildings be made.

2.6.6 Biodiversity survey of the river and banks

Relevant details from biodiversity databases held by Shropshire Wildlife Trust, the

Environment Agency and Natural England need to be identified that might affect any works

relating to the banks.

2.6.7 Visitor survey of footfall on and under the Bridge

Surveys by IGMT since the mid 1990s have shown figures varying between ¾ and 1 million

visitors come to the Ironbridge Gorge, with half of them entering a museum where they are

counted accurately. There is insufficient detail in the surveys to apply the figures just to the

Bridge, so it is recommended a new one is done, perhaps by an Ironbridge Institute student.

2.6.8 Sequence of erection anomaly

No contemporary record of the original order of erection has yet come to light, though a

conjectural sequence was been produced by the author in 2003, based on over 30 years of

observation and study (Appendix 6). However, a new anomaly was discovered in 2010 which

deserves further consideration: on the base plates of the Tontine side (Fig 57) there are some

square holes which may have been for temporary timber supports. Curiously, they are not

replicated on the Tollhouse side (Fig 58). Which set of base plates were installed first and

which arrangement proved to be the most effective? If we assume the south side plates and

the associated verticals went in first, did they discover the need for extra anchor points and so

remedied that on the north side base plates? If in fact the north bank‟s plates were first

perhaps they found they didn‟t use the holes and so omitted them from the next set of castings.

Fig 57 (left): Two of the ten square holes in the base plates on the Tontine side, their purpose unknown.

Fig 58 (right): They are not repeated on the opposite bank. Author, 2010


44

3 Heritage Values and Significance

Heritage values can be ascribed to different aspects of the Bridge, its role in the wider historic

and natural environment, and its place in society. Experience shows that judgements about

heritage values, especially those relating to the recent past, tend to grow in strength and

complexity over time as people‟s perceptions of a place evolve. These heritage values are

interlinked, and can be divided into four groups, as described in Conservation Principles

(English Heritage, 2008):

Evidential value

Historical value

Aesthetic value

Communal and economic value.

3.1 Evidential value

The primary source of such evidence is the physical remains – in this case the Iron Bridge and

its surrounding built and natural environment. The wider setting of the Iron Bridge includes

the Tollhouse and associated structures, the approach from the former Station yard, the

Tontine Inn and its surrounds, the Market Square, and views from up and down the river

(see Appendix 1, Gazetteer, Sections 2-8).

Fig 59 (left): Aerial view, 1988. IGMT. Fig 60 (right): Winter view from downstream. Author 2011

The Iron Bridge is the first single span bridge built entirely of iron in the world in 1779.

It was constructed using cast and a very small amount of wrought iron, with a span of 100

feet (30.5m). Although there have been repairs to the fabric and alterations to the

abutments, the Bridge retains integrity and authenticity because almost 100% of the original fabric remains. The repairs are nearly all additions rather than replacements.

There was some pioneering technical development within the structure of the Bridge,

particularly in the nature of the scarfing joint at the crown. However, its detail remained hidden until the survey of 1999.

The name of the settlement of Ironbridge that swiftly grew up on the north bank of the

river takes its name from the Bridge, as does the Gorge which was previously known as Coalbrookdale and later as the Severn Gorge.

In recognition of the outstanding importance of the structure, the Iron Bridge was

designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM 27558) in 1934, and is also a Grade I


45

listed building. It was taken into guardianship in October 1975. The Toll House and shed

are listed Grade II.

The setting of the Iron Bridge is also designated and protected. The settlement of

Ironbridge was designated a Conservation Area in 1971 and extended in 1980. The

woodlands to the south of the river and the woods on Lincoln Hill on the north bank are

both designated SSSIs.

In recognition of the unique contribution to the industrialisation of the world the

surrounding areas of Coalbrookdale, Ironbridge, Hay Brook Valley, Jackfield and

Coalport were inscribed as a World Heritage Site in 1986, at a time when only four other

industrial World Heritage Sites had been designated in the world. The World Heritage Site

Management Plan and Statement of Outstanding Value are currently under review.

3.2 Historical value

The historical values associated with the Iron Bridge, from a local, national and international

perspective:

The importance of the iron industry

Civil engineering, national and international

Personalities behind the Bridge

Cost

Development of communications in the Coalbrookdale area

Development of the town of Ironbridge

Coach services

Tourism.

The importance of the iron industry

The manufacture and construction of the Iron Bridge demonstrated the importance of

mass production of and technology of coke-smelted iron. The Quaker Ironmasters of the

Darby and Reynolds families from Coalbrookdale had been innovators in the manufacture

and use of iron, from sand casting hollow pots, to coke smelting of cast iron in 1709;

casting of cylinders for steam engines in 1723, iron wheels in 1729 and iron rails in 1767

(Figs 61 and 62). “The Iron Bridge can be seen to be the logical outcome of the evolution

of technology in the Coalbrookdale Coalfield over the previous 70 years” (Cossons &

Trinder 2002). It demonstrated that iron could be used as a construction material and paved the way for break through in civil engineering.

Fig 61 (left): Coalbrookdale cast iron steam engine cylinder, 1758. IGMT Elton Collection (detail).

Fig 62 (right): Coalbrookdale cast iron wheels and rails. IGMT.


46

Civil engineering – national

Prior to the Iron Bridge, bridges were either multi span masonry bridges e.g. John Gwynn

Atcham Bridge near Shrewsbury1769-76, or wooden such as Preens Eddy Bridge (Severn Gorge), or beams and trestles e.g. Selby Bridge over the River Ouse.

The Iron Bridge has high technological value as the first large span iron bridge in the

world, creating a role for cast iron in civil engineering which continued up until the late

1850s, when cheap steel made by the Bessemer process began to replace it. All histories of modern bridges cite Coalbrookdale as the starting point.

It was acknowledged at the time as being a development of real significance; the Royal

Society considered “the magnitude and originality of the undertaking” worthy enough to present their Gold Medal in 1788 to “Mr Darby the Builder of the Iron Bridge”.

83

Thomas Tredgold (1788- 1829) reflected in 1824 “one of the boldest attempts with new materials was the application of cast iron to bridges” (Cossons & Trinder 2002).

Cossons & Trinder have identified

over 130 iron bridges built in the

British Isles between 1779 and

1830 when engineers came to

appreciate the advantages and

disadvantages of iron as a

constructional material. Pioneering

use of iron followed for bridges,

aqueducts, building construction

and railways, utilising the

compressive strength of cast iron as

well as the tensile strength of wrought iron.

Fig 63: Thomas Telford‟s wrought iron Menai Bridge of 1826. IGMT Elton Collection

Those involved with iron construction in the next few decades include:

John „Iron Mad‟ Wilkinson (1728-1808). Industrialist; boring accurate cast iron

cylinders for steam engines, and inventor of the first iron boat.

William Jessop (1745-1814). Bridge and canal engineer, jointly responsible for

Pontcysyllte aqueduct 1805.

Charles Bage (1751-1825). Innovative design for the first cast iron fireproof textile

mill in the world, Ditherington Flax Mill 1797

John Nash (1752-1835). Architect using cast iron for the Picture Gallery roof at

Attingham Park.

Thomas Telford (1757-1834). Civil engineer for Pontcysyllte aqueduct 1805 and the

Menai Suspension Bridge 1826.

William Reynolds (1758-1803). Coalbrookdale ironmaster.

John Rennie (1761-1821). Bridge engineer.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806-1859). Iron ship SS Great Britain 1843, with plates rolled by the Coalbrookdale Company at Horsehay.

83

Minutes of the Royal Society, 6th

February 1788


47

Civil engineering – international

The technology was immediately

copied by the aristocracy in Western

Europe to ornament their parks and

palaces with 10 iron bridges being

built in the park at Tsakoe Selo by

Catherine the Great within the next

decade. By 1788 there was an iron

bridge in the park of the Duke of

Orleans at Raincy north east of

Paris, and a quarter scale replica of

the Iron Bridge at Wörlitz near

Dessau, Prussia in 1791 (Cossons &

Trinder 2002).

Fig 64: The small copy of the Bridge at Wörlitz, about 50 miles southwest of Berlin. G Blake-Roberts

Personalities behind the Bridge

“The Iron Bridge was the brainchild of the architect Thomas Farnolls Pritchard (1723-77).

The scheme to launch it was realised through the encouragement of John Wilkinson and

the legal and political skills of Thomas Addenbrooke. It became a reality as a result of

Abraham Darby III‟s personal commitment to the project” (Cossons & Trinder 2002).

Costs

Abraham Darby III (1750-89) was remembered by subsequent generations of his family as

„failed in business‟ (Cossons & Trinder 2002). At his death he owed £60,000 to his

brother in law, Joseph Rathbone, and to other kinsmen, though mostly relating to land

acquisition to secure mineral rights. Within this was a sum relating to the Bridge, the

original estimate for which was £3,250. However, according to Lord Torrington in 1784,

(see Appendix 7) the cost of the Bridge exceeded £6,000, the overspend being borne

personally by Darby, and in 1785 the brothers La Rochefoucauld thought Darby on the

brink of bankruptcy.

Development of communications in the Coalbrookdale area

Before 1780 the Severn was not bridged between Buildwas and Bridgnorth, coracles and

ferries serving instead. Though the Severn was a great transport corridor from the upper

reaches of the Severn Navigation beyond Shrewsbury down to the Bristol Channel, it was

a barrier to communication and trade between the north and south banks. The building of

the Iron Bridge changed both patterns of communication and settlement within the Gorge.

Terrestrial communication within the Gorge had been extremely limited prior to the

building of the Bridge, with the turnpike road from Madeley to Buildwas Bridge over

Lincoln Hill and a tramway from the Old Furnace in Coalbrookdale to Dale End and the

Wharfage. New roads were built from the Wharfage to the Tontine and eventually to

Madeley which was completed in 1810. A new road was built from the southern end of

the Bridge towards Broseley and the Wenlock Turnpike.

Development of town of Ironbridge

“The Bridge stimulated the growth of the new town of Ironbridge and, as one of the

wonders of the age, drew countless travellers to be equally gratified by the

neighbourhood‟s spectacular blast furnaces, coking hearths, limestone mines and kilns, tunnels, and inclined planes” (Baugh & Elrington 1985).


48

Central to the development was the building of the Tontine Hotel designed by John Hiram

Haycock (1759-1830) and completed in 1784. The market of Madeley was transferred to

the Square in Ironbridge in the 1780s and in 1799 a short-lived cattle market was

proposed. By the 1830s the growing town that perched on the precipitous sides of the

Gorge was serving the needs of the local population as well as the increasing number of

tourists that came to view Coalbrookdale and the Bridge.

Coach services

The first stagecoach to run a regular

service over the Bridge was the

Diligence, the Shrewsbury to London

service commencing in 1781. The

Bridge, the roads and the Tontine

Hotel opened up the possibility of

tourism, encouraged by the marketing

of the engraving of the Bridge (Fig 65)

commissioned by Abraham Darby in

1780 from Michael Angelo Rooker,

which did much to advertise the

Bridge and encourage curious travellers to visit.

Fig 65: Rooker‟s engraving of the Bridge, first published in 1782. It is based on the oil painting by Williams

shown in Fig 13 on page 19. IGMT.1983.1933

Development of tourism

Many industrialists, engineers and travellers flocked to view “one of the wonders of the

world” as described by Viscount Torrington in 1784 (see Appendix 7). Its impact did not

pall, with charabancs visiting as works outings from the Black Country in the later 19th

century. By the early 20th

century the area was polluted, full of the waste of furnaces,

forges and brick works and it no longer excited admiration. James John Hissey (1847-

1921) wrote in 1913 “It was an unwelcome change from the rural pleasantness of the

country about Buildwas, coming to the squalid and smoky town of Ironbridge in

Coalbrookdale ... Ironbridge gains its name of course, from the bridge of iron that spans

the Severn there in one bold arch. At the time of the building of the bridge in 1779, it was

considered a great engineering feat, even a thing of beauty, tho I saw no beauty in it

except the curve of the arch. Its black colour is out of tune with the landscape, it seems to have no part in it”. (Trinder 2005).

Yet, following the creation of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust in 1967, almost every

child in the West Midlands will have been brought on a school visit to the Iron Bridge in their study of the Industrial Revolution.

The inscription as a World Heritage Site in 1986 has brought increased foreign tourists to the Bridge as one of the „must sees‟ whilst visiting Britain.

3.3 Aesthetic value

The Iron Bridge is one of many places which combine both intellectual and sensory

stimulation. Design value is particularly important element in the Bridge, embracing

composition (form, proportions, massing, silhouette, views and vistas, circulation), materials,

detailing and craftsmanship. Strong indicators of importance are quality of design and execution, and innovation; clearly this overlaps closely with historical and evidential value.


49

The whole area of Coalbrookdale, the Gorge and its many industries excited artists and

travellers and writers before the Bridge was built. Indeed the drama of the iron industry with

skies lit up at night with flames and plumes of smoke, the mines, quarries, canals and general

activity, had been the subject of

several artist before 1779, such as

Thomas Smith of Derby and his

engraver François Vivares (Fig 66)

who had painted two views of

Coalbrookdale in 1758

encapsulating the intrusion of

industry onto the picturesque

heavily-wooded landscape, and

William Williams‟ two paintings

from 1777 depict travellers

marvelling at the forges and furnaces.

Fig 66: Abraham Darby‟s Upper Furnace works at Coalbrookdale in 1758, which was enlarged in 1777 to cast

iron for the Bridge. IGMT. Elton Collection

But the Iron Bridge was so novel and extraordinary that it spawned a plethora of images.

According to Cossons & Trinder “Much of the interest was created by conscious promotion

first by the Trustees, then by the hotel keepers and coach operators who stood to benefit from

the interest of tourists” (see Appendix 7). Images of the Bridge were used on Coalport china,

on fireplaces and on advertising as the symbol was so potent.

Branding

Aesthetically the Bridge is widely used as a symbol or logo for a wide range of businesses

and organisations in a variety of sectors, both in the UK and overseas. A selection of these is shown below:

Ironbridge Brewery

(Ironbridge)

Investment management

(Chicago)

Morris dancers

(Ironbridge)

Rowing Club (Ironbridge)

Copper cylinder manufacturer (Telford)

Shopping mall (Telford)

Fig 67: A sample of companies and organisations using the Bridge in their logos.


50

The history of using the Bridge as a marketing device can be traced to the late 1770s when

William Williams was commissioned to produce a painting, subsequently copied by Michael

Angelo Rooker and widely distributed as an engraving84

(Fig 65, p48). Today businesses

clearly value the Bridge as an easily-recognisable symbol which represents several aspects,

the most obvious being location, identifying the business with the immediate area. Some are

within sight of the Iron Bridge, such as the „Bird in Hand‟ public house which has a large

painted mural of the Iron Bridge and proudly proclaims itself as „Older Than The Ironbridge‟

[Ironbridge as one word, which is nowadays only used for the name of the town]. Others,

including some of those depicted above, and firms such as Elcock‟s coaches, QA Kitchens of Wellington are not in Ironbridge, but use the Bridge as a shorthand symbol for Telford.

3.4 Communal and economic value

The Bridge has had enduring communal values since its erection in 1779 which link with

Section 3.2 Historic values above:

As a thoroughfare across the river

As a tourist attraction from the 18th

century till the present day

As a source of academic study, by engineers, artist and scholars throughout the world,

both in the past and still today through the educational work of the Ironbridge Institute and the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

The Iron Bridge is also a lasting component in the economy of the West Midlands.

The major economic value of the Bridge is in its role as part of the wider tourism economy of

the local area and of the West Midlands region. The Iron Bridge is the iconic symbol of the

Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site, which is in itself recognised as one of the three

tourism gateways to the West Midlands (West Midlands‟ Visitor Economy Strategy) along with Birmingham and Stratford-Upon-Avon.

Visitor research conducted by the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust and by independent

market research companies in terms of visitor profiling, has consistently shown that the Iron

Bridge itself is a significant draw for visitors to the area and that most visitors who travel to

the Gorge make the time to include the Bridge on their itinerary. The most recent study of the

economic contribution of visitors to the Ironbridge Gorge suggests a very conservative

contribution of over £17m per annum to the local economy (Volume & Value Assessment

commissioned by Telford & Wrekin Council, 2008). Given the large increase in visitor

numbers to the Gorge in 2009 and 2010, the current economic value of tourism to the

Ironbridge Gorge is likely to be significantly higher.

Looking ahead to the economic potential of tourism generated by the London 2012 Olympic

Games, the Iron Bridge has already been used as a symbol of the Cultural Olympiad by

LOCOG (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games) following Ironbridge‟s role

as the launch venue for the West Midlands‟ Cultural Olympiad in 2008 (Fig 68, overleaf).

Ironbridge as a World Heritage Site has been confirmed as a venue for the Torch Relay in

2012, and its close proximity to the nearby Shropshire town of Much Wenlock, the spiritual

birthplace of the modern Olympic movement, offers a great opportunity for increasing visitors

to the region over the coming years.

84

IGMT 1983.1932; IGMT 1983.1933


51

Fig 68 (left): Iron Bridge lit as part of the Cultural Olympiad celebrations, 2008. Fig 69 (right): Ironbridge

Gorge World Heritage Site branding, developed in 2008 and featuring the Iron Bridge

The value of the Iron Bridge in terms of the wider economy and especially in relation to

helping create a strong sense of place is more difficult to quantify, but it is undoubtedly

significant. The Iron Bridge features on much of the gateway signage and many of the visitor

guides relating to the region, including as one of a range of icons or brands identified with the

region in both the arrivals and departure terminals at Birmingham International Airport. In

the arrivals lounge of the airport, a sunset image of the Iron Bridge is used, sitting alongside

other West Midlands‟ icons including Land Rover, Wedgwood, JCB and Shakespeare, on an

interactive digital information board welcoming both domestic and international visitors.

Market research undertaken in August 2010 showed that 10% of those passing the

information board were able to spontaneously recall that the Iron Bridge was part of the

display following their exit from the Airport (McCann Erickson).

During the live General Election debates hosted in Birmingham by the BBC in the spring of

2010, the Iron Bridge was one of three featured images used in the backdrop behind the

speakers. In this context, the Iron Bridge clearly fulfils the role of a symbol of the wider West

Midlands‟ region as a whole to a national viewing audience. As a further illustration of the

position of the Bridge in the nation‟s psyche, a recent independent poll conducted by the BBC

showed that the Iron Bridge was viewed as one of the top 20 icons of Britain, an example of

the enduring power of the Bridge as a unique symbol of the Industrial Revolution and Britain‟s role in this world-changing story.

As an icon the Iron Bridge is a powerful and emotive symbol of local identity/ies – social

values which define distinctiveness, social interaction and coherence.

3.5 Statement of significance

The Iron Bridge built across the Severn Gorge in Shropshire in 1779, is the first structural

use of cast iron, creating a bridge of a single span of 100 feet.

It is the culmination of 70 years of innovation in the technologies of iron manufacture and

use by the Quaker ironmasters of Coalbrookdale, especially the Darby family and their close relatives.


52

It retains its integrity and authenticity, surviving the floods that swept away other bridges

along the River Severn in 1795.

It proved that iron could be used in civil engineering and opened the way for immediate expansion of engineering in bridges, canals, steam, railways and ship building.

The revolutionary use of iron as a structural material was copied all over Europe and

America.

The building of the Iron Bridge created the new community and settlement of Ironbridge

and extended the communication networks around Shropshire.

Its form is intrinsically beautiful in itself, but it is also situated magnificently against the

heavily wooded backdrop of the Gorge.

Despite decline in the early 20th

century, the far sightedness of the Telford Development

Corporation in the 1960s and 1970s ensured the preservation of the setting of the town of

Ironbridge. It has proved to be a lasting tourist attraction, and is on the „must see‟ list for visitors to the area.

The natural beauty of the area linked to the marvels of the industries encouraged artists to

paint and depict the Bridge in many media. It also inspired writers and travellers to describe the Bridge.

An image of the Bridge has been used as a brand for businesses, and indeed to symbolise

the West Midlands.

The Bridge and the visible remains of the areas industrial past have fostered scholarship

and protection, which started with the creation of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust in

1967.

The Bridge is one of the two key monuments which underpin the designation of the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site, the other being Abraham Darby‟s Old Furnace.

The Iron Bridge is an iconic structure that is recognised throughout the world as potent

symbol of the Industrial Revolution.

3.5.1 Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site

In recognition of all the above the area was inscribed as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO

in 1986. The Ironbridge Gorge was amongst the first six sites in the United Kingdom to be

inscribed and was one of the first industrial World Heritage Sites globally. Drawn from the

Statement of Universal Value, the UNESCO website describes Ironbridge‟s 1986 inscription as follows:

Ironbridge is known throughout the world as the symbol of the Industrial Revolution. It

contains all the elements of progress that contributed to the rapid development of this

industrial region in the 18th century, from the mines themselves to the railway lines. Nearby,

the blast furnace of Coalbrookdale, built in 1708, is a reminder of the discovery of coke.

The bridge at Ironbridge, the world's first bridge constructed of iron, had a considerable influence on developments in the fields of technology and architecture.

It falls under key criteria i, ii, iv and vi for inscription:

Criterion (i): The Coalbrookdale blast furnace perpetuates in situ the creative effort of

Abraham Darby I who discovered coke iron in 1709. It is a masterpiece of man's creative


53

genius in the same way as the Iron Bridge, which is the first known metal bridge. It was built in 1779 by Abraham Darby III from the drawings of the architect Thomas Farnolls Pritchard.

Criterion (ii): The Coalbrookdale blast furnace and the Iron Bridge exerted great influence

on the development of techniques and architecture.

Criterion (iv): Ironbridge Gorge provides a fascinating summary of the development of an

industrial region in modern times. Mining centres, transformation industries, manufacturing

plants, workers' quarters, and transport networks are sufficiently well preserved to make up a

coherent ensemble whose educational potential is considerable.

Criterion (vi): Ironbridge Gorge, which opens its doors to in excess of 600,000 visitors yearly, is a world renowned symbol of the 18th century Industrial Revolution.

The geographic area of the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site covers 5.5 km² and includes

7 scheduled ancient monuments, over 250 listed buildings and 2 SSSIs, as well as residential

and commercial areas. Ironbridge is rightly viewed as a complex mix of unique heritage

landscape, international tourism destination and living community. The Iron Bridge sits at the

centre of the World Heritage Site and these three interlocking roles, both literally and

metaphorically.

3.6 Issues affecting the significance of the Bridge

The Bridge‟s significance is in large part due to its authenticity and integrity. There are a

number of present and future issues which may affect the significance of the Bridge. These are explored further in Section 4.

Lack of conservation and inappropriate maintenance to the Bridge itself.

The design and management of buildings, surfaces and street furniture: both in Ironbridge

town (the Market Place and the area in front of the Tontine and around the War Memorial)

and on the Broseley side (the car park – former Station Yard – and paths through Benthall

and up to Broseley, the Station Hotel and approaches).

Geological issues. There is a long history of geological instability in the Ironbridge Gorge, and indeed remediation work has in the past been undertaken to the Bridge itself.

Environmental issues. The management of woodland areas and other landscape elements,

including flooding and water run-off.


54

Section 4 Issues and opportunities

The main issues, threats and thus opportunities fall into five major categories:

1. Conservation and maintenance of the Bridge

2. Development

3. Presentation – visitor management, community engagement and education

4. Environmental pressures 5. Disasters and risk preparedness.

4.1 Conservation and maintenance of the Bridge

4.1.1 Elements on the Bridge

Most of the original 1779 ironwork is in a good condition and although there are many

fractures in the north quadrant radials (for example Fig 70, below left), they contribute

relatively little to the structural integrity. The radials function more as spacers than load-

bearing members and enough of them are intact to keep the upper, middle and lower ribs the

correct distance apart. Their replacement on purely cosmetic grounds should be avoided.

The record of cracks (see 2.4.5, Conisbee 2009) provides a base line for future comparisons

and should be used as part of routine monitoring.

However, many of the major repairs are now over 100 years old and while most of them

appear to be in sound condition, the 1902 horizontal straps and braces above the base plates

(Fig 71: below right) are a cause for concern. There is rust expanding between the cast iron

spacer blocks and the steel band that ties it all together. Removing the rust will necessitate taking off the band, which may have to be replaced with a new one (see Appendix 1, 1.5.M).

Fig 70 (left): Fractures to the radials both sides of the middle rib, frame D. Author 1999

Fig 71 (right): Rusting between the 1902 steel band and cast iron blocks on the south bank. Author 2010

Less critical are the two decorative ogees. They were replaced in

1927 in thin wrought iron a third of the thickness of the cast iron

member alongside (Fig 72) and have since buckled. This is an

example of an inappropriate past repair and they could be

replaced with new castings in the original section (see Appendix 1, 1.13.M).

Fig 72: The right half of the ogee is in thin wrought iron. Author 1999


55

The deck ends are an area of concern, the photo (Fig 73, below left) showing one that fell off

in February 2010. This is not a new problem, first occurring in 1902 (see p25). The cause is

rust expansion in the narrow space between the scalloped flanges and the adjacent deck

bearer, and it is likely more such failures will occur unless this rust is dealt with. It should be

noted that any of the original parts of the Bridge which have had to be replaced are kept in the

Museum‟s archaeology store behind the Ironbridge Institute in Coalbrookdale (Fig 74).

Fig 73 (left): A deck end that broke off in 2010 during exploratory work. Fig 74 (right): The casting in the

IGMT store. Author

A list has been made of all of the key archive holdings and reports including EH, NMR,

IGMT, TWC and Shropshire Records (Appendix 9), much of which has already been

incorporated within Appendix 5. However, there

is a key tool in the metric survey of the Bridge

undertaken by EH in 2000 (Fig 75, left) which

could be used to aid management. This digital

record could be enhanced by the inclusion of an

interactive database, whereby all of the past

interventions to any element of the structure can

be summoned by the clicking of the mouse on

the casting under investigation. Site photographs

of the element should also be included in this

record. It is not known whether the software

exits to do this, but it should be explored.

Fig 75: A frame from the Metric Survey of 2000. EH

4.1.2 Road surface

It is recommended that EH pursue the option of removing the services from within the road

deck. The original road surface was slag mixed with clay, which was replaced with tarmac

once motor vehicles started using the Bridge. The „peanut brittle‟ top dressing currently on

the Bridge was first laid in 1979, resin-bonded to the asphalt layer over the light-weight

aggregate beneath which had been laid in 1975. Given that vehicles no longer use the Bridge

it would be possible to replicate the slag and clay appearance, albeit in a lower-maintenance

material. Samples dating from the time of the Bridge from Bedlam Furnace where the main

elements were cast were provided by the author to EH in 2003 to explore sustainable sources

that might match in appearance. A 20m trial length with different compaction characteristics

should be laid on the existing footpath by the Tollhouse and exposed to use for 18-24 months

before the final mix is agreed. When the new surface is laid the footpaths should not be

reinstated, which would return the Bridge to its pre-1923 configuration. The cast iron kerbs are a 1979 cosmetic addition of no historical validity.


56

The removal of the old surface must be carried out with care, avoiding vibrations which could

cause more deck end failures. Charles Shapcott (previously EH) recommended a maximum

weight of 800kg of equipment used in this process, which will make the removal of the old

material and replacement of the new labour-intensive – a small dumper and its load will

exceed this limit. Equally, the new surface will need mechanical compacting (Highways Act

Road Note 29), and here again the weight limit will be a problem. There is no indication that any such restrictions were applied in 1975 so the 800kg limit may be unnecessarily severe.

Gaps between deck plates were sealed with flash bands in 1975 and they should be re-opened

to aid free drainage of water. As part of this work consideration should be given to diverting

all services off the Bridge, which will remove the ducts that currently funnel water from the

Benthall side up and into the Bridge deck. Richard Zeizer (EH) recommends a French drain

be inserted just uphill from the tollgate to divert rainwater run-off before it reaches the

Bridge, whether or not the services are removed.

4.1.3 Paint colour

Unfortunately the severe sand-blasting back to bare metal in 1980 robbed us of the

opportunity to take paint samples to identify the original colour, though it is claimed that at

the time a small area of original colour was discovered and retained (Hume, pers com 2011).

If so, it appears to have been lost in the 1999 repainting. Nevertheless, almost all of the

contemporary pictures of the Bridge show it to have been black or grey, which is confirmed

by documentary evidence in the Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book for 1787.85

This evidence

was used to guide the choice of paint colour for the 1999 repainting programme.86

Rather than

adding colour through a new creative paint scheme, it is recommended the original dark grey

be used and any colour achieved by the use of floodlighting.

4.1.4 Sufficient resources for maintenance

Regular monitoring is an important element of maintenance and management regimes, but in

the current economic climate of government funding restraint the availability of funding for

maintenance could be an issue. This applies equally to work that is the responsibility of TWC

SGCT, and IGMT, as well as that managed by EH. An example is vegetation management.

As recently as the 1960s the tree cover on the south bank only started on the far side of the

railway line. The banks had been used for industry and until around 1900 clear access for

boats was required. Vistas from upstream on the south bank are being lost. Young tree growth is attractive but needs managing, as do the plants that cling to the river edge.

4.1.5 Coordination of owners and partners

There are numerous stakeholders and not all of them are made aware of interventions to the

Bridge and its immediate area. A system for improving this is recommended, ideally

coordinated by the World Heritage Officer.

85

Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1755-98, 8th June 1787, SRO.3689-98

86 de Haan, D. 2001. The Iron Bridge, Historic Building Survey, Record & Analysis, Appendix J, provides a

record of this and all known previous paint schemes


57

4.2. Developments relating to the setting of the Bridge

4.2.1 Inappropriate alterations to the setting

Alterations and additions to adjacent properties and setting could adversely affect the

presentation of the Bridge. Owners need to be aware of Scheduled Monument legislation,

listings, conservation area and World Heritage Site guidance. Loss of features due to land use

change (e.g. forestry work) fall into this area, and demolition of listed buildings within the

Conservation Area and specifically within the setting of the Bridge should be resisted. The

siting of information panels and advertisements within the setting needs careful control.

Consideration should also be given to planting trees to mask the visual intrusion of vehicles in

the south car park.

4.3 Presentation, visitor management, community engagement and

education

There are interpretation panels behind the doors of the Tontine Vaults, but they are only

opened on Heritage Days. Keys are held by EH staff at Much Wenlock and by the Gorge

Parish Council in Ironbridge. A much fuller display is in the Tollhouse, though currently this

is only open at key weekends during the local school summer holidays and also by prior

arrangement for groups and school parties on application to IGMT. It is staffed by volunteers.

A management solution to increase the frequency of opening should be explored, which

should include the local community, especially during the annual World Heritage Site festival in September.

Other external interpretation needs updating, but to be implemented as part of an

interpretation strategy for the World Heritage Site. A considerable amount of information is

on the IGMT website at http://www.ironbridge.org.uk/about_us/the_iron_bridge/ and links to

this could be mentioned in interpretation panels. The Bridge features strongly in the work of

IGMT‟s Education Department, but is dependent on staff resources which are currently under threat as Renaissance in the Regions grants are being cut.

There is adequate long stay car parking on the south bank, but there are no toilets here.

Parking in the Square is short stay and spaces are limited. There is a long term aspiration to

revert the Square to pedestrian use and this started in March 2011 with the Farmers‟ Markets the first Saturday of the month. This would greatly improve the setting.

The true number of visitors walking on and under the Bridge is unknown and should be

addressed by a survey. Since the infamous „duck races‟ of 1985 and 1986 there is now a

loading limit on the Bridge of 200 people during any event, controlled by the erection of

crowd control barriers that limit the accessibility down to a 2m wide pathway. This is

managed by TWC. However, there is no such control on the towpath, so measures need to be

considered to ensure long term sustainable access without erosion, damage or overcrowding.

Litter control is managed effectively by TWC and graffiti is rare. The setting could be greatly

improved by better planting and management of the sloping banks at the north end of the

Bridge.

http://www.ironbridge.org.uk/about_us/the_iron_bridge/


58

4.3.1 Floodlighting

The Bridge was lit for a festival in 1933, but it was not until the mid 1960s that permanent

brick lighting bins (Fig 76 below) were installed upstream of the structure.87

The bins were

over 3m long and were removed during the 1973-4 work on the underwater strut. They were

replaced by much smaller ones in 1977, but only after a scheme was tested in March that year

(without permission from the Department of the Environment) which used lights within the

ironwork above the upper horizontal cross stays. The current brick bins (Fig 77) are regularly

covered during floods and are at the end of their life. A scheme was explored by TWC in

2001 and again in 2005, but the consultants proposed fixing the luminaires directly to the

Bridge which was unacceptable. More recently Alan Capewell (EH) has investigated

alternative arrangements using light stands (Fig 78) that would bring the fittings 2m higher

than the present bins, though these too would be covered in extreme river levels such as those

that occurred in 1999. Even higher positions are available on the north bank below the

Tontine Vaults which would keep light fittings above any water level, while on the south bank

the light would have to be fixed on a column at the existing location. There is a scale model in

the Ironbridge Institute which could be used to test the positions and effects of lighting. Light pollution needs to be controlled, particularly where it might affect adjacent private properties.

Fig 76 (left): The large 1960s floodlighting bins (circled). Dawley DC 1965. Fig 77 (centre): the smaller 1977

bins. Author, 2011. Fig 78 (right): A bespoke light column proposal. Candela Light

It is recommended that the main light sources remain on the upstream side because of the

sight lines. However, there may be the case for an infill light from downstream to reduce the

flatness of the effect. It could be sited on or near the lower

viewing platform, again well above flood levels. The orange

sodium vapour lights (Fig 79, left) are unsympathetic while

coloured lights proved to be very effective during the

Cultural Olympiad scheme of September 2008 (Fig 80,

below). That display was unnecessarily complicated for any

permanent installation but experience from the Ruhr in

Germany shows the value of a cycle of very slowly

changing white and coloured lighting.

Fig 79: The current flat orange floodlighting.

87

Visible on Aerofilms photo of 6th

April 1965. NMR.MAL/65024.193


59

Fig 80: Two phases of the impressive temporary light show that launched the Cultural Olympiad in the West

Midlands, September 2008. IGMT

4.4 Environmental issues

The key pressures inevitably stem from land instability and climate change impacts. An

agreed monitoring regime needs to be established that coordinates span measurements,

inclinometer recordings, flood records and information from the wider Lidar survey (see 2.6.1

and 2.6.2). While the Bridge will flex and move with temperature changes and river pressure,

the rigid underwater strut needs to be monitored as part of this process. These aspects should be fed into any periodic review.

River users in the form of canoes, rowing boats and fishermen present little threat, though a

system for addressing possible conflicts should be developed. More critical is the scouring of

the southern bank just below the Bridge where the remnants of the 1973 access platform is

being seriously undercut.

4.5 Disasters and risk preparedness

4.5.1 Climate change and increased flooding

Fig 81: A fracture on the south bank probably caused by the 1795

flood. Author

There are records of floods back to 1634, the worst

being 12th

February 1795, which was 8.9m above

summer level – over 4m above the base plates. The

medieval Buildwas Bridge was swept away and all other

Shropshire bridges were either badly damaged or

destroyed. Remarkably the Iron Bridge stood unharmed,

though one fracture to the base plate on the Tollhouse

side probably dates from this flood (Fig 81, left). Major

floods over 7m occurred in 1946 (7.49m), 1947 (7.5m) and 2000 (7.04m). But even at slightly

lower levels, floods over 5m are an increasing phenomenon and have occurred in 1990

(5.49m), 1995 (5.53m), 1998 (5.66m) and 1999 (5.4m) – the latter about 2.8m above the base

plates. The Environment Agency and TWC coordinate the erection of flood barriers along the

Wharfage based on information from the Buildwas river gauges. As an extension to this

scheme it would be prudent to consider the design of demountable barriers, which would

deflect large floating debris towards the middle of the river and away from the ironwork of

the Bridge. The mountings need to be designed in such a way so as not to detract from the


60

aesthetic appearance of the Bridge. The tops of the barriers would need to be a minimum of

4m above the level of the base plates.

Global warming may have been the main cause of the increased frequency of floods, though

building in the flood plain further upstream is a major contributory factor. Flood barriers

progressively installed since 2004 – temporary or permanent – have had a tendency to

exacerbate the problem downstream of their location. Historically floods were caused in

winter by the combined effect of a rapid thaw of snowmelt that covered already saturated

ground in the Welsh mountains. The catchment of the Severn covers about 3,900 sq km

(1,500 sq miles), all of which feeds down into the 30m-wide gap between the Bridge

abutments. The Welsh dams do not stop floods once they are full and overflowing, and in

these conditions the flow regulation effect in Ironbridge is less than 5cm. For many years

since the opening of Clewedog dam in 1968 there were no floods in Ironbridge, but this was

merely a coincidence. The effect of the 1795 flood is shown below (Fig 82) compared with

the normal summer levels. It would be unreasonable to plan for the 1-in-1000 year event that is shown below (Fig 83). The river regularly tops the base plates (Fig 84).

Fig 82 (left): Flood prediction of a 1-in-100 year event (TWC), compared to the normal situation (EH).

Fig 83 (left): Flood prediction of a 1-in-1000 year event. TWC. Fig 84 (right): A regular flood about 1m over

the base plates. The 1-in-100 year event would be 4m higher. Author

4.5.2 Pollution incidents upstream

The Environment Agency is well prepared to deal with pollution incidents, whether from farming or potentially from the Ironbridge Power Station.

4.5.3 Instability

Failure of the underwater strut and of land slippage within the Gorge might be addressed by piling, similar to the recent work below the Jackfield Bridge, but the cost is enormous.


61

Section 5 Conservation policies

5.1 Protect the spirit of the place

The small town of Ironbridge climbing the north bank (and facing the sun), and the hanging

woods rising up the south bank play a major role in the setting of the Bridge. Inappropriate

piecemeal interventions to the town or the woods could destroy this magical setting.

Recommended Policy: Adhere to established national conservation policies relating to

built and natural heritage.

Because the town accommodates a living community it should not be fossilised as an

eighteenth century pastiche. There is the need for a correct balance between conservation and

renewal, erring on the side of the former. The limits of acceptable change are narrow in this setting.

Recommended Policy: Establish agreed limits of acceptable change.

5.2 The basis of the approach

All work should be guided by conservation standards as set out in the Venice Charter of 1964,

with guidance from EH‟s „Principles of Conservation‟ 2008, PPS 5 2010, and BS 7913 for

building control. Associated local reports include the Public Realm Design Guide for the

World Heritage Site (2010) and the WHS Interpretation Strategy (2008), which provide guidance that has been endorsed by members of the WHS Steering Group.

In terms of conservation of the Bridge this means minimum intervention, like-for-like repairs,

all repairs should be reversible and repairs should be sympathetic. If major repairs are

required to castings they should be in „grey iron‟, a modern standard that almost exactly

matches the original metallurgical composition of the Bridge based on the analysis of a 1779

deck plate. It is not necessary to use „pure iron‟. Wrought iron, not steel, must be used for any

repairs to elements in this material (obtainable from the Ironbridge Gorge Museum‟s Blists

Hill ironworks). Continued maintenance to defined standards is essential. However, a rigid

adherence to SPAB philosophy of keeping all past interventions irrespective of their quality and suitability is not recommended.

Recommended Policy: The conservation approach will be guided by EH’s ‘Conservation

Principles’ 2008, rather than a rigid adherence to the SPAB Manifesto.

5.3 Retention of character

The Bridge as a focal point and also as a river crossing is the raison d‟être of Ironbridge, and

its filigree structure must be retained without unsympathetic interventions. While this report

concentrates on the areas in Guardianship, inappropriate interventions to areas around the Bridge will have an undue impact on the monument itself.

Because the Bridge is at the heart of a local community, sits within a World Heritage Site and

is also visited by up to a million visitors a year, the conservation of this unique asset is a

highly visible process. A visitor to the site in 50 years time should be able to see that all work has been done with a long-term vision in mind.

Recommended Policy: Interventions should be carried out with a 50-year vision in mind.


62

5.4 Conservation and Maintenance of the Bridge

Agreed parameters for regular monitoring must be established – of the span dimensions

(2.6.4), the underwater strut (2.3.8 and 2.3.10), land movement through inclinometer readings

and LiDAR (2.6.2), checking for the presence of water in the north abutment concrete box

(2.3.8), and of any changes to the 2009 crack record (2.3.10). Particularly attention must be

given to the effect any of this may have on the fractured inner verticals of frame A, north quadrant (4.1 and Appendix 1, 1.14.M).

Recommended Policy: Establish agreed parameters for regular monitoring.

To maintain structural integrity:

Treat rusting of the two 1902 braces just above the base plates (4.1.1, CM1 and

Appendix 1, 1.5.M).

Treat rusting at the interface of the deck plate scallop flanges with the outer deck bearers

(4.1.1, CM1 and Appendix 1, 1.6.M).

Treat any rusting within joints and fractures (Appendix 1, 1.0.M). Take professional

advice before filling the cracks either with an epoxy resin or an elastomeric polymer

such as Belzona 2111, prior to repainting (2.4.5).

Insert packing between deck bearers and deck plates where the two are not in contact, on

both the main arch and the inner land arch.

Recommended Policy: Undertake repairs where they are necessary to maintain structural

integrity.

Other possible interventions to the structure:

Check the central bolts of all six of the 1926 steel cross ties and replace if necessary

(CM1 and Appendix 1, 1.9.M). These cross ties are vital to keep the original horizontal

cast iron spacers in place.

Avoid replacing the fractured radials on the north quadrant on purely cosmetic grounds

unless they become essential for stability or safety (4.1.1). The Bridge flexes with

temperature changes and river flow pressures and new stiffening could divert loads to

other areas.

Review whether to leave or replace the two thin 1927 wrought iron ogees which have

buckled (4.1.1 and Appendix 1, 1.13.M).

Recommended Policy: Use experienced staff to advise, and use suitably qualified

contractors with an understanding of conservation criteria to undertake repairs.

Explore whether the EH 2000 Metric Survey can be enhanced by the inclusion of an

interactive database to include records of past interventions, photographs, archives, etc (4.1.1 and CM1). This could be used in the office or in the field.

Recommended Policy: Use appropriate technology to aid the work of Inspectors and other

relevant staff.

The static load on the Bridge needs to be lightened. The 1975 road deck material is at the end

of its life and is breaking up. It acts as a sponge, partly seeping through the broken surface

and partly percolating into service channels, thus retaining rain water which adds to the static

load on the Bridge. Because the gaps between the deck plates were sealed, there is no

opportunity for this water to escape.


63

The road deck needs to be replaced, but should be re-laid without pavements (4.1.2) to return

the Bridge to its pre-1923 configuration. Once the old material has been removed the

condition of the deck plates can be reviewed, any gaps between the plates can be opened up to

allow drainage, and if possible all services diverted off the Bridge. If this is not possible, the

cross-section of the water and gas service pipes should be reduced by the use of plastic

ducting.

While the road material is up, the manhole that provided access to the hollow concrete box

within the north abutment can be located and made accessible. It will allow future monitoring of its condition and whether it is holding undesirable amounts of water.

The replacement material should mimic the original 1779 appearance of “clay mixed with

slag”, but using sustainable materials.

A new French drain should be installed across the road to the south of the Tollgate to intercept water coming down from Benthall Edge.


integrity.

Once the repairs above have been done and the road deck renewed, the Bridge should be

repainted. The historically correct colour is dark grey (CM1 and 4.1.3).

Recommended Policy: Maintain historical accuracy by painting the Bridge dark grey.

In times of reduced financial allocation to EH, TWC, SGCT, ensure funding is in place to monitor and maintain the Bridge and ancillary structures.

Recommended Policy: Ensure prioritisation and allocation of resources.

Management arrangements between stakeholders and partners need to be maintained to ensure

effective application of statutory designations, local planning designations and

implementation of work (4.1.5, CM9 and CM10). Communication should be coordinated by the World Heritage Officer.

Recommended Policy: Coordinate awareness of stakeholders through the Steering Group.

5.5 Development

Alterations and additions to adjacent properties and to the setting could adversely affect the

presentation of the Bridge. Demolition of listed buildings within the Conservation Area

should be resisted. Owners need to be aware of the Scheduled Monument legislation, listings, conservation area and World Heritage guidance (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6).

Recommended Policy: Control inappropriate alterations to the setting.

Install new lighting units higher than their current level to aid maintenance reduce flood damage. Demolish the exiting brick „bins‟ (4.3.1 and D7).

Recommended Policy: Improve awareness of the Bridge beyond daylight hours.


64

5.6 Presentation, visitor management, community engagement and education

EH‟s presence is surprisingly low key. Outdoors, a simple EH-branded panel is needed at

each end of the Bridge, plus a fuller EH-branded interpretive panel on the downstream

viewing platform. Include the IGMT website URL on these panels where one can find a lot of

information about the Bridge. External panels need to be designed as part of the wider

interpretation strategy for the World Heritage Site, and should be limited in number and not

be intrusive (P2, P3, and P4). Better access to the existing interpretation in the Tollhouse is required.

Recommended Policy: Improve intellectual access to the Bridge.

Relocate the pedestrian exit from the main car park further to the south so it is level with the approach road, thus avoiding the steep slope.

Recommended Policy: Improve disabled access to the Bridge.

Ascertain more accurate statistics about visitor footfall through surveys, both on the Bridge

and the towpath. Use the information to inform management decisions about carrying capacity and routine maintenance (P5, P6 and P8).

Recommended Policy: Improve knowledge base to aid management.

EH to work with IGMT, TWC, SGCT and other agencies to maximise the benefit of

educational programmes (P4). Educational facilities exist at Coalbrookdale and Blists Hill,

and do not need duplicating in Ironbridge. Through IGMT programmes are available from pre-school right up to postgraduate level, but require support for resourcing.

Recommended Policy: Maximise the educational potential of the Bridge.

5.7 Environmental pressures

Agree a programme of regular maintenance, including the removal of vegetation from outside

the parapets. A similar programme of maintenance of tree growth along the upstream south bank needs to be agreed with SGCT. (2.6.1, 2.6.2, 4.4 and E1).

Recommended Policy: Manage the day-to-day maintenance of the Bridge and its setting.

Repair damage from river scour to the south bank immediately downstream of the Bridge.


integrity.

5.8 Disasters and risk preparedness

Consider the design of demountable flood barriers to deflect floating debris towards the centre

of the river and away from the ironwork. Like the road barriers, these would only be erected

in times of need. (4.5.1, E2, E3, E4, E5, DR1, DR2, DR3, DR4 and DR5).

Recommended Policy: Manage the day-to-day maintenance of the Bridge and its setting.


65

Land stability programme. Design and cost a programme of piling to resist the slippage of the banks (4.5.3 and DR6).


integrity.

5.9 Setting

Protect the setting by the use of planning control (CM10, CM13, D3, D4, D5 and E7).

Manage the natural setting (CM8, CM12, E8 and E9). Protect the archaeological sites (CM2). Retain and manage the views from the immediate surroundings (CM8, D5 and P7).

Recommended Policy: Liaison and ongoing dialogue between EH and SGCT, and other

agencies as appropriate.

Tree planting would help mask the visual intrusion of vehicles in views from the north bank

(4.2.1 and P7). The effect of root damage to the retaining wall and the car park surface must be considered in the selection of trees.

Repair damaged railings within the Bridge section of the towpath. Repair other railings and

footpaths on the north bank. Repair damage to steps near the upper viewing platform. Remove the staggered row of cast iron bollards at the north end of the Bridge.

Recommended Policy: Improve public safety and the setting of the Bridge.

5.10 Management, implementation and review

Review the Guardianship area boundaries in agreement with EH and TWC, especially at the

Tontine end (2.5.1).

Update the land ownership details on the GIS record.

Revise the 1997 SAM description, correcting minor inaccuracies.

Use the World Heritage Site Steering Group to inform and coordinate stakeholders in all

actions relating to the Bridge and its immediate surroundings. This should be coordinated by

the World Heritage Officer (2.5.1).

Review this Conservation Plan within five years.


Appendix 1 66

Appendix 1

Gazetteer


Appendix 1 67

Appendix 1 Gazetteer

The Gazetteer describes the individual elements within the confines of the designated plan

area and provides an assessment of their significance, condition together with a statement of

issues and recommendations. In order to measure levels of significance, a consistent guideline

has been adopted as detailed below.

Level of

significance

Description

High The element is relatively intact, has special interest, and makes an important

contribution to the wider significance of the site.

Medium The element has been altered, has less interest, and its contribution to the

wider significance is less important

Low The element has been significantly altered, has a low level of integrity, the

special interest has been lost and it makes little contribution to the wider

significance of the site

Neutral The element is historically unimportant, but does not have a negative visual

impact on the surrounding site

Negative The element is historically unimportant or has a negative visual impact on

the surrounding site

See overleaf and Appendix 7 for the nomenclature used for the ironwork.

6

3b

3c

3a

5

5 5

1

5 2a 2b 2c

2c 2c

2d

2e

2f

4ac 4b

8a

2g

7a

8b 8c

7b

3c


Appendix 1 68

Summary of nomenclature for the iron components

Lettering conventions for the Bridge used in the Gazetteer:

M is the Main Arch; S1 is the Inner Land Arch (the one nearest the river); S2 is the Outer

Land Arch, nearest the south abutment.

A, B, C, D and E identifies the frame of an arch (‘A’ being the furthest upstream); this

applies to all 3 arches.

Nq and Sq are respectively ‘north’ or ‘south quadrants’ either side of the crown of an arch.

u and d signify ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ elevations, where relevant.

Ra to Rn - with a capital ‘R’ - signify Radials of the Main arch, numbered consecutively

from the Tontine side to the Tollhouse side, starting at ‘a’ with the lower horizontal brace.

ra to rf - with a lower-case ‘r’ - are the Radials of the Side Arches; ra to rc are on the north

quadrant, and rd to rf on the south quadrant

M

S1 S2


Appendix 1 69

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship

Location The main arch. 99% of the original ironwork

is still in situ.

One exception (arrowed) is included below.

Code 1.0. M. The original arch, 1779 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

The arch is almost all original The oval hoop on the left is in place;

the one on the right is missing. D/E/Sq.

There are two others also missing.

Significance High. The main arch is the most important element of the Bridge. All of the

original 1779 iron components survive in situ, except for three wrought-iron

oval hoops which are missing, two decorative ogees which were replaced in

1927, some packing between the deck bearers and deck plates, and some

swan neck supports to the balustrades that were replaced in 1980 and 2001. Condition The ironwork is sound but there are areas of rusting within some joints and

the 1999-2000 paint is beginning to fail. Issues & Recommendations

Clean Bridge back to bare metal, taking especial care within the joints and

cracks. Fill cracks with an elastomeric polymer prior to repainting.

The missing oval hoops do not pose a problem because straps added in 1926

replace their function. Consideration should be given to adding additional

deck plate packing and to removing any badly rusting original packing.


Appendix 1 70


Location On the main arch, rising from the base

plates to the lower cross stays on both

banks. M/A to E/Nq, and M/A to E/Sq.

Code 1.1. M. The so-called ‘missing’ ribs, 1791. Outer ribs. Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

(Left) Location of the ‘missing’ ribs on Nq. (Right) A pre-1791 sketch

This 1780 woodcut shows the ribs missing on both sides

Significance High. Datable historic interventions that must be retained. From 1779 to

1791 the bottom sections of the outer ribs below the lower cross stays were

missing. There are five on each bank. While the upper and middle ribs are

continuous castings, the outer ribs are made in two sections. Its bottom

sections were added in 1791 and are the only hollow castings on the Bridge,

the earliest of all datable hollow castings anywhere. Two of them have

incised numbers (a ‘2’ and a ‘7’), suggesting these two are non-standard sizes. Condition Good. Issues &

Recommendations Ultrasound tests in 1996 confirmed these castings are hollow, not in tension.


Appendix 1 71

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location On the main arch, south quadrant,

against the inner pier, above the upper

cross stays (Rm), M/Sq

Code 1.2. M. Wrought iron brace against the pier on the south bank, 1802 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

1802 wrought iron brace against the stonework, which spans the entire pier

Significance High. This is the only large wrought iron component in the Bridge, the rest

being cast iron. When the original south abutment was demolished in 1802 a

temporary brace was erected to maintain the spacing of the frames. It was

never removed. Condition Good, though some delaminating. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic intervention that must be retained. Its function was made

redundant by the new 1803 pier so the delaminating is not critical, but this

component is a historically important element.


Appendix 1 72

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, above inner pier,

south quadrant, M/Sq

Code 1.3. M. Two deck plates of 1803 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Deck plates revealed in 1975. The two within the box are from 1803.

Significance High. Datable historic intervention that must be retained. The last two flat

deck plates on the south quadrants were installed in 1803 to cap the new inner

pier. All the other flat deck plates are from 1779. Those in the foreground

with flanges are from 1822. Condition Good when last uncovered (1975). Issues &

Recommendations Gaps between plates were sealed with flashing in 1975. Review when next

the plates are revealed.


Appendix 1 73

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, frame A, radials Re and Rf.

M/A/Nq/Re, and M/A/Nq/Rf

Code 1.4. M. Wrought iron rods added to radials Re and Rf, by 1897 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

(Left) Rods added to the top of radial Re, and (right) to radial Rf, frame A.

Significance High. On frame A, north quadrant, wrought iron rods were added to tie two

of the radials to the deck bearer above them. These two minor repairs were

undertaken following an earthquake of 1896. Condition Good. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic repairs that should be retained. These two radials act as

spacers between the upper rib and the deck bearer.


Appendix 1 74

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch just above the base plates

on both banks.

M/A to E/Nq, and M/A to E/Sq.

Code 1.5. M. Braces with cast iron spacers and steel band, at knee-height

above the base plates, 1902 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

On the north quadrant On the south quadrant

Rust expansion between the The original 1902 drawing from the

iron blocks and the steel strap. IGMT archives. IGMT.1972.12.

Significance High. This is a major structural addition to the Bridge. It was made in 1902

by the Coalbrookdale Company, order no 4388, drawing n

o 2516.

Condition Considerable rusting at the interface between the cast iron blocks and the

enclosing steel strap, especially on the south quadrant. However, the iron

blocks are sound. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic interventions that should be retained. Dismantle the straps,

remove the rust, and if necessary replace the steel straps. Details are available

from the original drawings which survive in the IGMT archives.


Appendix 1 75

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, selective deck plate ends

over and outside frames A and E,

M/A/Nq, M/E/Nq, M/A/Sq and M/E/Sq

Code 1.6. M. Deck plate end repairs, 1902 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Where there are three bolt heads visible on the underside (above left), that

deck plate end has been repaired. This applies in 39 cases. The original

drawing (right) from the IGMT archives. IGMT.1972.13.

An original 1779 broken-off deck A new failure in 2010

plate ends, Museum of Iron Significance High. The repairs were done by the Coalbrookdale Company in 1902, both to

those damaged by a railing on the downstream side of the north quadrant that

fell into the river, and to any others that were considered unsafe. The

downward flange sits so close to the outer deck bearers A and E that a build-

up of rust is possible, and when it expands the deck plates can break off at

this point. One fell off in 2010. Condition Good. The 1902 interventions can also be identified from above by a square

end, unlike the 1779 originals which have a cavetto moulded end. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic interventions that should be retained. The narrow space

between the flange and the deck bearer needs special care to remove rust and

inhibit its return. Any work on the Bridge deck that causes vibrations could

cause more deck ends to fail. Repair 2010 break.


Appendix 1 76

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, south quadrant, downstream

diagonal stay. M/D/Sq

Code 1.7. M. Sleeving repair to diagonal stay, 1902 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

The original drawing (left) and the repair in situ (right)

Significance High. A significant and datable intervention of riveted and bolted steel

sleeve. It was made in 1902 by the Coalbrookdale Company, order no 4388,

drawing no 2612. The original drawing is in the IGMT archives,

IGMT.1972.15. Condition Good. Issues &

Recommendations This is a fairly intrusive repair, but a datable historic intervention that should

be retained.


Appendix 1 77

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, north quadrant, below

the ogee. M/E/Nq.

Code 1.8. M. Ogee bracket support, 1903 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Significance High. Movement of the abutment must have broken off the tenon that locates

the bottom of the ogee in the inner upright, which was solved by this

substantial repair. [For interventions to the other half of the ogee, see 1.13.] Condition Good. Issues &

Recommendations A datable historic intervention that should be retained.


Appendix 1 78

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, upper, middle and lower horizontal

braces. Steel straps added at three locations on

both quadrants. M/Nq and M/Sq.

Code 1.9. M. Steel cross ties, 1926 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

(Left) One of the 1926 steel straps next to the 1779 cast iron braces.

(Right) The original drawing.

Significance High. There are cast iron spacers of 1779 between each frame, located at

three levels on both quadrants. Wrought iron ties originally held these spacers

in position, many of which were failing by 1926 when these steel straps were

installed. Made by the Brymbo Steel Company (then part of the

Coalbrookdale Company) and installed 6th

to 9th

October 1926. The original

drawing is in the Shropshire archives, SRO.6001.3701. Condition Good. All six sets continue to serve their purpose well and show no signs of

rusting. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic interventions that should be retained. The central tensioning

bolts are vital to their function and they should be replaced if necessary.


Appendix 1 79


Location Main arch, south quadrant,

diagonal stay. M/Sq

Also north quadrant, fixing bolt to

top of diagonal stay. M/Nq

Code 1.10. M. Strap repair to upstream diagonal brace, 1926 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Two simple straps to the diagonal on the Sq. The original drawing (left) also

shows a bolt repair to the top of the Nq diagonal.

Significance High. A simple but honest repair, strapping a new strut to the fractured

diagonal. Made by the Brymbo Steel Company. The original drawing is in the

Shropshire archives, SRO.6001.3701. Condition Good. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic interventions that should be retained. Routine checking of the

bolts is advised.


Appendix 1 80

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, one on top of each inner vertical.

M/A to E/Nq, and M/A to E/Sq

Code 1.11. M. Bracket repairs at the top of all ten inner vertical, 1926 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

The original drawing (left), and one of the ten brackets in situ (right). This is

the one on frame A on the north quadrant, marked A1.

Significance High. Pressure from land movement through the north abutment caused

fractures to the inner verticals at the upper cross stay (Rb) and to some of the

deck bearers where they sit on the verticals. These large cast iron saddle

brackets tie the verticals to the near horizontal bearers and were essential on

the north quadrant, but were also added on the south as a precautionary

measure. Each is individually numbered: A1 to A5 on the Nq and R1 to R5 on

the Sq. Made by the Brymbo Steel Company. The original drawing is in the

Shropshire archives, SRO.6001.3701.

When the saddles were installed the engineers also inserted 4in by 4in oak

struts between each frame, which are still in situ. Condition Good. The oak struts also seem to be in sound condition. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic interventions that should be retained. Routine checking of the

bolts is advised. The oak struts should be retained if they are sound, and

replaced if not, though a cast iron equivalent would be acceptable.


Appendix 1 81

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, the circles in the spandrels

of each frame, M/A to E/Nq,

and M/A to E/Sq

Code 1.12. M. Clamps added to the circles, 1926 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

These simple clamps have been fitted to every circle.

Significance High. The original drawing for the saddle brackets (1.10 above) included an

instruction for these clamps to be put in 12 positions. It is in the Shropshire

archives, SRO.6001.3701. Made by the Brymbo Steel Company. Condition Good. Issues &

Recommendations Datable simple and honest historic interventions that should be retained.

If required the bolts could be renewed.


Appendix 1 82

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, two of the ogee elements

on the north quadrant on frames A and E.

M/A/Nq and M/E/Nq.

Code 1.13. M. Two wrought iron replacement ogees, 1927 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

The left half of the ogee is a 1779 casting; the right half is the lightweight

replacement. This is the one on frame E. The original drawing is on the right.

Significance Medium. Made by the Brymbo Steel Company to replace ogee elements that

had fallen off from frame A and E on the north quadrant. The original cast

iron sections are 5in by 2¾in but the two missing ones were replaced with 5in

by ¾in wrought iron sections. The contractor’s drawing is in the Shropshire

archives, SRO.6001.3701. Condition Good but buckled. Issues &

Recommendations The two ogees were lighter than the ones they replaced and between 1927 and

1972 had buckled badly as the abutment slipped towards the river. They serve

no structural purpose and could be left, or replaced in the correct cross

section.


Appendix 1 83

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Main arch, repair to the inner upright

M/A/Nq

Code 1.14. M. Plating of the inner upright, c1950 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

The inner vertical leans back at the fracture covered by the plate. All the other

inner verticals on the north quadrant are fractured at this point (frames A and

B can be seen on the right), but only frame A has the plating repair.

Significance High. This plating repair was done after 1946 and before 1952; the exact date

is so far unknown. A horizontal thrust through the upper cross stay was

responsible, also causing fractures to many of the decorative radials on the

north quadrant. Condition Good. Issues &

Recommendations An honest and functional repair which should be retained.


Appendix 1 84

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location North abutment, south elevation Code 1.15. M Tie bars inserted, probably 1798 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Tie bars in the north abutment

Significance High. In June 1798 tie bars were inserted into both abutments. The south

abutment was demolished three years later. It is not known whether both of

the tie bars visible in the photograph are from this date, but they are visible on

the earliest photographs. Condition Good. This abutment was emptied of its rubble fill in 1972 and a hollow

concrete box was created in its place. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic interventions that should be retained.


Appendix 1 85

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Below water underneath the main arch,

about 4m below the base plates.

Code 1.16. M. Underwater concrete strut, 1973-4 Ownership English Heritage Designation Included in the Guardianship, but not part of the scheduling Description

Coffer dam for the first (south) half of the strut in 1973. Right: section.

On completion the sheet piling was cut off level with the top of the strut.

Significance Neutral. A reinforced concrete strut the width of the Bridge cast in coffer

dams over two summers in 1973 and 1974. The centre is anchored by 15m-

long stressed rods drilled down to the shale. The strut is only visible where

the concrete facing rises up the footings, stopping three courses short of the

base plates. Condition Good. An underwater survey was done in September 2008 and the strut

appeared to be in good condition with no sign of damage due to corrosion of

the rods. Issues &

Recommendations Scour on the south bank just downstream of the strut should be addressed.


Appendix 1 86

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Inner land arch, S1. 100% of the original

ironwork is still in situ.

Code 1.0. S1. The inner iron side arch of 1823 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Significance High. All the original components of this 1823 cast iron side arch remain in

situ, though many later interventions have been added to repair the castings.

These were required because of land movement at Bridge deck level, causing

fracturing of the frames and buckling of the road deck. There is no obvious

sign of land movement in the piers or at the lower road level. Condition Mainly good, though there is rusting between some of the bolted-on plates

and the frames beneath them. Issues &

Recommendations Clean the ironwork back to bare metal, repair the rust damage and if

necessary replace defective plates, and repaint.


Appendix 1 87

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Inner land arch, inner pier

Code 1.1. S1. Evidence of the earlier wooden side arch of 1802 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Next to the 1823 iron frames of the outer pier there are columns of small

stones, evidence of the larger 1802 wooden elements they replaced.

Significance High. The only surviving evidence of the 1802 timber side arches are the

columns of smaller stones next to the ironwork at the upper levels. They in-

filled the spaces left behind by the removal of the timber struts. Condition Good. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic interventions that should be retained.


Appendix 1 88

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Inner land arch.

Code 1.2. S1. Bolted on plates of 1845 and 1846 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

1840s bolted-on repair plates

Significance High. A considerable number of plates were bolted on to repair fractures to

the frames, costing £96 in 1845 and £10 in 1846. Condition Most of them are sound, but a few of the later ones (see 1.3. S1) have rust

between the wrought iron plates and the cast iron frames. Issues &

Recommendations Where possible datable historic interventions should be retained. Clean the

ironwork back to bare metal, repair any rust damage and only if necessary for

structural reasons replace defective plates, and repaint.


Appendix 1 89


Code 1.3. S1. Bolted on plates and horizontal spacers of 1861, and plates of

1879 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Repair plates on frame E (left), frame D (centre) and the horizontal spacers

(right).

Significance High. £100-worth of repairs was done in 1861 to the inner arch. The

horizontal spacers are in the form of Tuscan columns. Further plates were

added in 1879 which fit round the 1861 horizontal spacers. Condition Some of the wrought iron plates are in poor condition, distorted by rusting

between the plates and the frames. The horizontal spacers are sound. Issues &

Recommendations Where possible datable historic interventions should be retained. Clean the

ironwork back to bare metal, repair any rust damage and where necessary

replace defective plates, and repaint.


Appendix 1 90


Code 1.4. S1. Cast iron girders added between the frames Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Significance High. £252-worth of repairs was done by the Coalbrookdale Company in

1880 to the inner arch, inserting 4 cast iron girders, one between each frame.

They have a flat bottom and a curved top, cast to match the already buckled

deck. Condition The girders are sound, but their curved upper surfaces no longer touch the

deck plates above because of subsequent land movement. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic interventions that should be retained. Insert new packing.


Appendix 1 91

1. The Iron Bridge - areas in Guardianship Location Outer land arch

Code 1.0 S2. Buckling of frame A on the outer land arch, 1823 Ownership English Heritage Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument, Grade 1 Listed Description

Significance High. Condition Good. Only frame A shows this buckling, caused by pressure from the

abutment. Issues &

Recommendations Datable historic element that should be retained. The distortion should be

recorded and monitored for any future movement.


Appendix 1 92

2. The north abutment and surrounds – areas owned by Telford & Wrekin Council

Location North end of the Iron Bridge Code 2a. Bollards to the north of the Bridge, parking bay to NE and stepped

pavement to NW with viewing platform Ownership Telford & Wrekin Council Designation Within the WHS and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

View towards the Tontine Car parking lay by and the Square

Planter at the foot of the steps Damaged brickwork

Significance Medium. This has little historic integrity, as there were previously buildings

to both sides, removed by 1946, but it is very important for visitor

appreciation of and access to the Bridge. There are three rows of bollards, too

many in a small area. A number of modern cast iron plaques are located here,

including the WHS plaque. Condition Some brickwork damage around steps caused by rust expansion of the railing

posts. Paved area largely good, however planters unkempt and in poor

condition. Issues &

Recommendations Differing surfaces, bollard clutter, unkempt planters. This area is very often

thronged with pedestrians who cross the road at will. Repair brickwork.

Remove the row of staggered bollards. Remove planters except when

flowering. Improve traffic management.


Appendix 1 93


Location North east of the Bridge Code 2b. War memorial and viewing platform Ownership Telford & Wrekin Council Designation Within the WHS and Ironbridge Conservation Area. War Memorial listed Description

War memorial Viewing platform, benches & planters

Significance High. This area was the site of previous buildings and the War Memorial has

been moved from the Square in 1965. Nevertheless, it is very important for

visitor access, relaxation and appreciation of the Bridge Condition All in good condition. Metal planters filled with seasonal planting Issues &

Recommendations Area of considerable pedestrian footfall, especially for Remembrance Day


Appendix 1 94


Location To the NE & NW of the Bridge Code 2c. Planted slopes Ownership Telford & Wrekin Council Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area Description

Slope to NE below War Memorial Slope to NW below Tontine Vaults

Significance Negative. These are both areas of former buildings, including housing,

warehouses and shops Condition The planting is poor, degraded and unattractive. There is gullying due to

water run-off/children Issues &

Recommendations Unattractive, poorly maintained amenity planting. This are has large numbers

of visitors and should be upgraded


Appendix 1 95


Location NE of the Bridge at lower level Code 2d. Lower viewing platform over former Tontine Stables + electricity

substation Ownership Telford & Wrekin Council Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area Description

Lower viewing platform Electricity substation

Vaulted cellars of former stable building

Significance Low. The viewing platform is a construct.

Negative. The electricity substation is visually intrusive, though necessary,

High. However, the vaults underneath are of significance, being the former

stables of the Tontine Inn, originally built in 1784. Condition The viewing platform is in good condition.

The Substation needs wood preservative.

The former Tontine stables are in poor condition, with cracks, spalling

brickwork and ingress of water. Issues &

Recommendations Access to substation- path to be kept clear for maintenance

Surfaces to be maintained

Remove vegetation from the vaults, replace bricks where necessary and re-

point using lime mortar


Appendix 1 96


Location Under the North abutment

Code 2e. Path under the arch and former cellars

Ownership Telford & Wrekin Council; former cellars English Heritage

Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

Stone sett path and broken railing View to the former Tontine cellars.

This area was the site of previous buildings on both sides, including a five storey

building to the west and the Tontine Stables to the east, and it is currently very

important for visitor access and appreciation of the Bridge.

Significance Medium. The path under the north abutment has considerable historic

importance. However, the stone setts were only introduced in 1990

Condition Most of the path itself is in good condition apart from the area circled, however

as noted in 2c above, the planted slopes are in poor condition. Part of the railing

is broken (circled). The façade of the former cellars – the Tontine Vaults – was

rebuilt in 1976 and shallow openings are behind the double doors.

Issues &

Recommenda

tions

Repair footpath and railing. Difficulty of wheel chair access over stone setts –

resurface, in time, with same surface as the Bridge. Ensure adequate maintenance

of the paths. There is no visible interpretation explaining the significance of the

cellars or the history of the previous buildings – dating from c1784


Appendix 1 97


Location Under the arch of the Bridge Code 2f. The Tow path Ownership Telford & Wrekin Council/Environment Agency?? Designation Within the WHS and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

Tow path looking west Tow path looking east. towards

Eustace Rogers’ coracle shed

Damaged footpath edge .................Damaged railings under the Bridge

Significance High Condition The tow path is of packed hoggin, the post and railings are in moderate

condition, though there are some areas in need of repair.

The river bank below in poor condition of scrubby willow, brambles and

scrub.

The wooden shed is in poor condition Issues &

Recommendations Public safety. Repair railings under the Bridge. Repair footpath edge at the

top of the upstream slope.

Flooding. This area floods on an annual basis and requires frequent

maintenance

Eustace Roger’s coracle shed. This wooden shed is a significant reminder of

the former coracle building craft of the river. It is currently for sale and a

decision must be made as to its future.


Appendix 1 98

2. The south abutment and surrounds – areas owned by Telford & Wrekin Council

Location SE abutment of the Bridge Code 2g. The steps Ownership Telford & Wrekin Council/Environment Agency?? Designation Within the WHS and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

Brick steps to SE of Bridge

Significance Medium Condition Adequate, but handrail poor Issues &

Recommendations Important access to lower tow path, abutment and Bower Yard.

Slip hazard due to overhanging trees – keep swept

Handrail disappears half way down the steps (originally a gas pipe) – install

new handrail


Appendix 1 99

3. The south abutment and surrounds – areas owned by Severn Gorge Countryside

Trust Location Bower Yard leading upstream along the Severn Code 3a. Un-adopted road Bower Yard leading to properties to E & W of the

Bridge Ownership Severn Gorge Countryside Trust? Private owners? Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

Un-adopted road Condition of the road

Significance Low – from a visitor point of view, but high for the private owners who live

along the track Condition Poor, rutted and full of potholes Issues &

Recommendations This road is un-surfaced and takes heavy traffic dealing with repairs to the

south abutment of the Bridge. Stretches of it are liable to annual flooding.

Maintain the road


Appendix 1 100


Trust

Location To the west of the Bridge, just upstream of the Tollhouse Code 3b. Area of rough ground on Bower Yard Ownership Severn Gorge Countryside Trust Designation Within the WHS and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

Rough ground along Bower Yard

Significance Negative Condition Unkempt and unsightly Issues &

Recommendations This area is clearly visible form the Bridge, and whilst it would be

inappropriate to formally plant it, it should be kept under control


Appendix 1 101


Trust

Location Southern river bank Code 3c. Wooded river banks to W & E Ownership Severn Gorge Countryside Trust? Dawley Angling club? Environment

Agency? Designation Within the WHS and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

Dawley Angling Club stations along the south bank of Bower Yard

Significance Negative Condition Currently the fishing stations are in poor condition detracting from the views

from the Bridge, yet they are important for the recreation of local inhabitants Issues & Recommendations

Flooding. The bank is liable to annual flooding, with much destruction both to

vegetation and structures, yet there should be a programme of annual

maintenance.


Appendix 1 102

4. The Tollhouse & shed – areas owned by Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

Location To the south west end of the Bridge Code 4a. The Tollhouse Ownership Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Listed building grade II Description

Tollhouse from the Bridge ( 2 storeys) Table of Tolls (copy)

Tollhouse from the rear (4 storeys).

The Tollhouse formerly functioned as the Tourist Information Centre at deck

level until 2010 with an exhibition about the construction on the upper floor.

Originally constructed in 1783, it was restored in 1974. The lower two floors

are leased as a flat by IGMT Significance High Condition Currently closed, but in good condition. The Tollhouse housed the Tourist

Information Centre at bridge level until 2010 and an exhibition about the

construction on the upper floor. It is currently open on holiday weekends and

on demand to IGMT. Originally constructed in 1783. Issues &

Recommendations Need to keep the Tollhouse maintained and in sustainable use.

Need for all weather interpretation exhibition about the construction of the

Bridge

Need for IGMT to lease the lower part of the building for income generation.

Toll House to reopen and interpretive centre for the Bridge and the town of

Ironbridge.


Appendix 1 103

4. The Tollhouse & shed – areas owned by Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Location To the south east end of the Bridge Code 4b. The shed Ownership Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

Brick ‘shed’. The angle of lean can be seen against the upright of the tollgate.

Historic images (l to r: 1952, 1969, 2011) suggest the lean was less severe in

the past.

Significance High. There has been a shed on this spot since 1783, and at one time it was a

weighbridge. Condition The structure has a pronounced lean. One opening bricked up. Issues &

Recommendations Review cause of increased lean and stabilise if necessary. Maintenance by

IGMT.

The structure is enigmatic and unexplained to visitors.

The structure should be given some form of sustainable use (as a store for

cleaning materials or crash barriers for events?).


Appendix 1 104

5. Adjacent private properties

Location To the north and south, but immediately adjacent to the Bridge Code 5a. Adjacent private properties Ownership Private owners, The Landmark Trust Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

68 Bower Yard Listed building 69 Bower Yard Listed building

70 Bower Yard Listed building 70 Bower Yard Listed building

34 High Street – Listed building Owned by the Landmark Trust, ground floor

used as the Museum Shop leased by IGMT

Significance High. These buildings have intrinsic historic significance themselves, but are

also highly significant to the setting of the Bridge Condition Private ownership , but all in good condition Issues &

Recommendations Visually important to the setting of the Bridge, therefore owners should be

encouraged to maintain them using appropriate materials and skills.

Bower Yard is liable to annual flooding


Appendix 1 105

6. The River Severn

Location Running through the Gorge Code 6. The River Severn Ownership The Environment Agency Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

North east bank North east bank from the south bank

Erosion on south east bank

Significance High Condition The condition of the river banks is poor in some places, especially the erosion

under the concrete slab on the SE bank. Issues &

Recommendations Flooding – the river is increasingly liable to annual flooding. Erosion scour

just below the Bridge is serious and needs attention.

Biodiversity – a female otter and cubs has been spotted on the south bank.

Possible major pollution incident from upstream, especially from Ironbridge

Power Station should there be a 100 year incident of flooding, the fly ash and

coal tips are potentially vulnerable.

The Environment Agency to monitor the river quality and condition and liaise

with TWC over flood prevention issues


Appendix 1 106

7a.The wider setting north – the Tontine, the Square and the town of Ironbridge Location To the North of the Bridge Code 7a Ownership Private Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area. Many buildings are

listed.

Description

View of Tontine Hill to St Luke’s Church The Square and Market Hall

Both residential and commercial properties

The town of Ironbridge forms the immediate setting for the Bridge. Most of

the buildings in the Square date to the 1780s. The town expanded greatly

from the 1790s onwards, servicing the tourist industry and travellers

Significance High Condition Private ownership. Several shops and restaurants have closed due to the

recession, giving a negative impression Issues &

Recommendations To avoid incremental negative change e.g. loss of features such as traditional

fenestration. This will be controlled though designation and Article 4

Directions and good liaison with the public.

Desire for owners to cut emissions and install renewable energy appliances.

This will be controlled though designation and Article 4 Directions and good

liaison with the public.

Street clutter – to be controlled by Design Guidance

Car parking – to be controlled by provision of additional parking/park and

ride/cycles/engineered solutions

Flooding – the areas along the Wharfage are liable to annual flooding –

deployment of flood prevention barriers by TWC


Appendix 1 107

7b.The wider setting north Location Views towards and from Lincoln Hill Code 7b. The view towards Lincoln Hill along the Wharfage Ownership Private owners / Severn Gorge Countryside Trust Designation Within the WHS and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

View from the Bridge towards the Wharfage and Lincoln Hill

Significance High. Very important for the setting of the Bridge Condition Issues &







Street clutter – to be controlled by Design Guidance

Car parking – to be controlled by provision of additional parking/park and

ride/cycles/ engineered solutions

Vegetation coverage at Lincoln Hill – to be maintained by SGCT.


Appendix 1 108

8. The wider setting south – areas owned by Telford & Wrekin Council

Location Steps to the SW of the Bridge, Car park in the former station yard Code 8a Ownership Telford & Wrekin Council Designation Within the WHS and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

Entry to Car Park. Tree roots have caused damage; tree recently felled.

View of Car Park Interpretation panels

Significance Low – in heritage terms, but important as the major car park for visitors to

both the Town and the Bridge. The Severn Valley Railway closed in 1963,

track taken up by 1965, station demolished The curved wall by the pedestrian

exit is all that remains. Condition The Car Park is in good condition. However there is a crack in the boundary

wall next to the steps and distorted tarmac due to tree roots, though the tree

(top left) has since been felled (top right). Issues &

Recommendations Maintenance of facilities.

Adequate provision of car parks, but at peak visitor times e.g. Bank Holidays,

WHS Festival, the car parking is not adequate.

Provision of Interpretation/orientation – improved visitor information

required.

Provision of public toilets / currently situated on the Square.

Consider a new pedestrian exit level with the car park surface to improve

disabled access.


Appendix 1 109

8. The wider setting south – private properties along Bower Yard, Ironbridge Road and

Bridge Road

Location Bower Yard, Ironbridge Road and Bridge Road Code 8b. Private properties along Bower Yard, Ironbridge Road and Bridge

Road Ownership Private owners Designation Within the WHS and Ironbridge Conservation Area. Listed buildings

Description

Significance High. Important historic views from the Bridge Condition Largely in good condition Issues &







Bower Yard is liable to annual flooding – Liaison with the Environment

Agency and TWC over flood prevention measures


Appendix 1 110

8. The wider setting south – areas owned by Severn Gorge Countryside Trust

Location Woodland along Benthall Edge, Ladywood and Workhouse coppice Code 8c Ownership Severn Gorge Countryside Trust Designation Within the WHS, and Ironbridge Conservation Area

Description

View to Benthall Edge View towards Workhouse Coppice

and Ladywood

The views from the Bridge towards the steep wooded southern slopes of the

Gorge are extremely important. SGCT are responsible for all the woods in

this area, from Benthall Edge (SSSI) and Patten’s Rock Quarry in the west,

through Workhouse Coppice to the ancient woods of Ladywood in the East.

Stone quarried from Ladywood was used for the abutments on the southern

side of the Iron Bridge at the time of its construction in the late 1770s .The

slopes rise 100metres from the Severn forming a spectacular backdrop to the

Bridge.

Significance High. The natural setting of the Gorge is extremely important historically,

archaeologically, environmentally and aesthetically. Condition Woodland, paths and steps all well maintained by SGCT. Management plans

written and adopted Issues &

Recommendations Continued management of the woodland – continue with excellent

maintenance undertaken by SGCT.


Appendix 1 111


Appendix 2

112

Appendix 2

Naming the parts

of the Iron Bridge


Appendix 2

113

Main Arch (M)

Appendix 2 Naming the parts of the Iron Bridge

Summary of nomenclature

Lettering conventions used in the annotation of drawings and record photographs:

M is the Main Arch; S1 is the Inner Land Arch, the one nearest the river; S2 is the Outer

Land Arch, nearest the south abutment. S1 and S2 are substantially the same.

Nq and Sq are respectively ‘north’ or ‘south quadrants’ either side of the crown of an arch

(the Tollhouse is on the south bank).

Ra to Rn - with a capital ‘R’ - signify Radials of the Main arch, numbered consecutively

from the north (Tontine side) to the south (Tollhouse side), starting at ‘a’ with the lower

horizontal brace. Ra to Rg are on the north quadrant, and Rh to Rn are on the south

quadrant, as in the diagram above.

ra to rf - with a lower-case ‘r’ - are the Radials of the Side Arches; ra to rc are on the north

quadrant, and rd to rf on the south quadrant.

There are 5 parallel sets of frames making up each arch. A, B, C, D and E identifies the

frame of the arch (‘A’ being the furthest upstream).

u and d signify ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ elevations, where relevant.

Ironwork of the side arches (S1 and S2)

Like the Main Arch, each side arch also has five frames, identified as A to E following the

same convention.

The elements are:

ribs lower rib, and upper rib

radials ra to rf – with ra to rc on the north quadrant, and rd to rf on the south

quadrant

beams Four ‘I’ beams inserted between but parallel to the frames in S1, but

not in S2. The castings are numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4, but with 4

upstream and 1downstream

braces spacers between the frames in S1, but not in S2; they are in the form

of Doric columns

deck plates

nuts and bolts

Inner Land Arch (S1)

Outer Land Arch (S2)

Nq Sq


Appendix 2

114

Ironwork of the Main Arch (M) – all in cast iron unless otherwise stated

Base Plate Each plate is made up of 5 interlocking castings

Verticals Rising from the Base Plates to the Bearers

inner vertical nearest the water

outer vertical against the abutments

Ribs The 3 concentric castings:

lower rib the one nearest the water, a single casting for each quadrant, meeting at

the Crown Joint (see below)

middle rib a single casting on each quadrant

upper rib known to be cast in 2 parts, above and below the lower cross stay Ra

and Rn (see ‘Radials’ below)

Radials Individual Radials are identified as Ra to Rn, running consecutively

from the north (Tontine) side to the south side, starting at ‘a’ with the

north quadrant (Nq) lower Cross Stay. Ra to Rg are on the north

quadrant, and Rh to Rn are on the south quadrant (see diagram below).

upper radials between the middle and upper ribs

lower radials between the middle and lower ribs

Cross Stays The 2 horizontal stays at right angles to the flow of the river

upper cross stay labeled as part of the Radials Rb and Rm

lower cross stay labeled as Ra and Rn


Appendix 2

115

Deck Bearer The beams supporting the Deck Plates, cast in two pieces per quadrant,

stopping 2m short of the centre where they meet the Crown Bearer

Crown Bearer A short curved length of deck bearer extending about 2m either side of

the crown

Crown Joint The interlocking joint at the crown resembling a key stone

Deck plates Carrying the road deck, they have decorative flanges on the underside

Diagonal Stay Inverted ‘V’ brace rising from the base plates and joining at frame C

just below the upper cross stay

Horizontal Brace Horizontal spacers and ties parallel to the flow of the river; steel straps

& Strap were added in 1926 to strengthen the original cast iron braces across

the lower ribs. These castings are between the lower ribs, held in place

by wedges and wrought iron oval rings

upper horizontal brace & strap

middle horizontal brace & strap

lower horizontal brace & strap

Horizontal Brace One on each quadrant, a single casting crossing all five frames high up

on the Inner Verticals above the junction of the Outer Rib and the

Inner Vertical; best seen on the cross section of the diagram

Steel Strap (1902) Steel straps and cast iron blocks about 50cm above the base plates

‘Temporary’ A brace in three pieces across the outer verticals of the south quadrant,

Wrought Iron Brace added in 1802 to maintain stability while the original south abutment

was being demolished, but never removed. This is the only substantial

wrought iron element on the Bridge; only on the on south quadrant


Appendix 2

116

Circle The decorative circle

Ogee bracket The ogee brackets high up between the Inner and Outer Verticals,

made in two pieces

Deck fascia Confining the road surface

Balustrade

base rail On the top of the Deck Fascia

posts

uprights

top rail

finials on top of the posts

dogbars the small ‘spear heads’ between each upright

swan necks supporting the posts from the overhanging base plates

lower brackets underneath the deck plates below the swan necks, linking to the

decorative flanges

Other elements:

mortise & tenon joints

dovetails actually ‘blind’ dovetails

wedges these are of cast iron

packing usually lead, but sometimes iron strips

screw bolts holding the dovetails in their housings, and also fastening the Crown

Joint; the original ones are square-headed and individually hand-made;

(any later nuts and bolts ones are hexagonal-headed)

nuts and bolts later additions, post- 1901

pins many joints, especially into the Deck Bearers, are pinned with iron

‘trenails’

Masonry

Abutments

north abutment Tontine side (sandstone)

south abutment Tollhouse side (sandstone)

Piers

inner pier nearest the river and against the main arch (sandstone)

outer pier between the 2 side arches (sandstone)


Appendix 2

117


Appendix 3

118

Appendix 3

Table of issues and

recommended actions


Appendix 3

119

Appendix 3 Table of issues and recommended actions

The following table of issues and actions relates to the areas of curtilage and setting described

in the Gazetteer (Appendix 1). The Planning context relates to the Wrekin Plan 1995-2006

(WP), many of the policies being still current, and to the Telford & Wrekin Core Strategy

Development Plan Document adopted December 2007. The Agency and Area refers to Fig 6

on page 13, also available on page 67.

Issue Recommended Action Planning

Context

Area and

Agency

1. CONSERVATION & MAINTENANCE

CM1 Conservation of the Bridge Treat rust in the 1902

braces

SAM EH

Remove rust from

between the fragile

scallop flanges and

deck bearers

SAM EH

Check bolts of 1926

steel cross ties and

renew if necessary

SAM EH

Remove road fill to

uncover deck plates,

open any gaps to aid

drainage. Apply new

road fill, but without

replacing pavements,

and cover with an

asphalt road surface

resembling clay mixed

with slag

SAM EH

Clean Bridge back to

bare metal, fill cracks.

Repaint with the final

coat in dark grey

SAM EH

Maintenance of the fabric of

the Bridge

Develop an interactive

database based on the

2000 EH Metric Survey

as a site tool to the

history of any element

EH

CM2 Protection of potential

archaeological sites within

the curtilage of the Bridge

WP 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d,

2e, 2f

3a, 3b, 3c

4a, 4b

8a

(EH & TWC) CM3 Prevention of decay: need for

ongoing maintenance of the

Bridge and tollhouse

Continued maintenance

by EH and other

property owners to

defined standards

All areas

(EH, TWC,

IGMT, private

owners)


Appendix 3

120


Context

Area and

Agency

CM3

cont. Continued monitoring

of heritage condition

and plan maintenance /

improvement

accordingly

All areas

(EH, TWC,

IGMT, SGCT,

private

owners)

Assess the maintenance

requirements of areas

that are poor / fair

All areas

(EH, TWC,

IGMT, SGCT,

private

owners) CM4 Ongoing maintenance of the

footpaths and roads adjacent

to the abutments

Continued monitoring



improvement

accordingly

2a, 2b, 2d, 2e,

2f

3a, 3c

8a

CM5 Ongoing monitoring and

maintenance of concrete strut

under the Bridge

Continued monitoring



improvement

accordingly

EH, TWC,

EA, SGCT

CM6 Inappropriate methods or

materials for repairs through

lack of understanding, skills

or materials, or changing

modern standards

Use appropriate

materials in accordance

with best practice

All structures

and properties

Future maintenance to

be based on

Conservation

Principles (EH 2008)

Develop a training plan

to integrate skills of

different owners of the

site e.g. EH and TWC.

Ensure correct design

guidance is used

EH, TWC

CM7 Ensure prioritisation and

allocation of resources

In times of reduced

financial allocation to

EH ensure funding is in

place to continue to

monitor and maintain

the Bridge and

ancillary structures

1 (EH)


Appendix 3

121


Context

Area and

Agency

CM7 cont

In times of reduced

financial allocation to

TWC to ensure funding

is in place to continue

to monitor and

maintain the ancillary

structures

2a-f (TWC)

7a, 7b

8a

CM8 Vegetation growth on the

Bridge, abutments and

affecting the views of the

Bridge

Undertake maintenance

on north abutment:

NW planning;

NW river bank

vegetation

management;

NE removal of ivy and

vegetation from

viewing platform;

control of vegetation on

river bank

WP

2c, 2d, 2e, 2f

(TWC)

3 (SGCT)

6 (EA)

Ensure agreed strategy

with SGCT for

management of

adjacent woodland on

the south bank and

wider setting of the

Bridge

WP 8c (TWC,

IGMT, SGCT)

CM9 Maintenance of

management of

arrangements between

partners to ensure effective

implementation

Steering Group to be

maintained to ensure

co-operation of all

stakeholders

All partners

CM10 Maintenance of effective

protection of the Bridge

through designations &

local planning designations

Ensure regular

meetings of Steering

Group

EH, TWC

CM11 Effects of previous

inappropriate repairs or

alterations

Develop a training plan

based on works so that

all partner staff,

volunteers and

contractors develop and

maintain appropriate

skills

EH, TWC,

IGMT

CM12 Ensure correct conservation

of the river banks

EA 3 (SGCT)

6 (EA)

CM13 Prevention of demolition in

the Conservation Area

WP 2 (TWC)

5 (TWC)

7a, 7b (TWC)


Appendix 3

122


Context

Area and

Agency

2. DEVELOPMENT

D1 Protect the scheduled ancient

monument and its setting

WP 1 (EH, TWC)

D2 Potential inappropriate

alteration or addition to

Listed Buildings adjacent to

the Iron Bridge

Ensure owners are

aware of Listed

Building, Conservation

Area and WHS

guidance

WP 4 (TWC)

5 (TWC)

7a, 7b (TWC)

8a, 8b (TWC)

D3 Resist demolition of listed

buildings within the

Ironbridge CA and

specifically within the setting

of the Bridge

WP

4 (&WC)

5 (TWC)

7a, 7b (TWC)

8a, 8b (TWC)

D3 Protect and enhance

buildings of local interest

within the setting of the SAM

WP

4 (TWC)

5 (TWC)

7a, 7b (TWC)

8a, 8b (TWC)

D4 Control number and siting of

advertisements within the

setting of the Bridge

WP

4 (TWC)

5 (TWC)

7a, 7b (TWC)

8a, 8b (TWC)

D5 Changes of land use within

proximity to the Bridge,

affecting views, including

forestry or redevelopment

Work with Natural

England, SGCT and

Shropshire Wildlife

Trust to comply with

characterisation and

designations

WP All areas

(TWC, IGMT,

SGCT, private

owners)

Work with all

stakeholders and

partners to ensure any

proposed development

is appropriate, e.g.

increased car parking

All partners

and

stakeholders

D6 Loss of undesignated features

to development / land use

change

WP 3a, 3b, 3c

(TWC)

8a, 8b (TWC)

D7 Installation of permanent

lighting scheme

Be aware of light

pollution

WP 1 (EH, TWC)

D8 Removal of services Seek to remove gas,

water, electricity, etc

from within the Bridge

road material

SAM 1 (EH) and

service

providers


Appendix 3

123


Context

Area and

Agency

3. PRESENTATION, VISITOR/TOURISM PRESSURES, EDUCATION &

LEARNING P1 Tourism/car parking WP 2a,7a,7b

(TWC)

8a (TWC)

P2 Need to develop & enhance

the presentation of the Iron

Bridge

Develop an

interpretation strategy

for the WHS, including

directional signage and

interpretation panels /

media

WP and

IGWHS

Design guidance

All partners

Collaborate with TWC

and IGMT to enhance

visitor knowledge of

the site – e.g. website,

Tourist Information

Centres, etc

EH, IGMT,

TWC

P3 Use of the Tollhouse Discuss between

partners

WP 4a, 4b (IGMT)

EH

P4 Need to engage the local

community

Increase education

programme and

resources of IGMT and

EH for the Iron Bridge

All

stakeholders

Encourage the Friends

of the Museum to take

a greater interest in the

Bridge

IGMT

P5 Need to maintain Health &

Safety of visitors

Undertake visitor

survey of the site and to

check on maximum

load number for the

railings

All partners

Railings on paths under

abutments

TWC, SGCT

P6 Need to ensure long term

sustainable access without

erosion, damage or

overcrowding

TWC, EH,

IGMT

P7 Need to improve physical and

non-physical access to the

site

Kerbs in the square

TWC, EH,

IGMT

Information panels or

interpretation

TWC, EH,

IGMT

Improve viewpoints

e.g. from the Rotunda

site on Lincoln Hill

SGCT


Appendix 3

124


Context

Area and

Agency

P7 cont.

Improve car parking on

N and S side of river

TWC

P8 Antisocial behaviour

resulting in litter and graffiti

Community

engagement to help

education, deterrent

and remediation

All partners

and

stakeholders

Standards of

maintenance to be

agreed by WHS

Steering Group

P9 Improve physical access Renew the Bridge road

surface, but do not

reinstate the footpaths

and kerbs

SAM 1 (EH)


Appendix 3

125


Context

Area and

Agency

4. ENVIRONMENT

E1 Need to address possible

conflicts with amenity users

of the river: fishermen,

canoeists, rowers, power

craft, etc

Environment Agency,

as the works would

relate to the river and

its banks

SGCT, EA,

TWC and

stakeholders

E2 Land instability Potential land

movement, distorting

the Bridge and the raft

leading to collapse

WP T&WC

E3 Climate change impacts 1.

Hotter summers, colder

winters

All partners

E4 Climate change impacts 2.

Impact of increased intensity

of rainfall, increased flood

risk

Increased liaison with

Environment Agency,

TWC

TWC, SGCT,

EA

E5 Need to protect the River

Severn from pollution

Increased liaison with

Environment Agency

over possible pollution

incidents

EA

E6 Need to protect the setting of

the Bridge

Liaison with

stakeholders and

owners TWC and

SGCT

WP

All partners

E7 Need to inhibit riverside

development that might

affect the setting of the

Bridge

WP TWC

E8 Need to protect and enhance

the biodiversity of the river

bank

Shropshire Biodiversity

Partnership

WP SGCT, EA,

Shropshire

Wildlife Trust E9 Renewable energy Renewable energy

development

WLP TWC

Wind turbines WP TWC

Energy use – private

owners

WP TWC

E10 Noisy outdoor sports WP TWC


Appendix 3

126


Context

Area and

Agency

5. DISASTER AND RISK PREPAREDNESS

DR1 Flooding TWC to liaise with EA

and EH over a Disaster

Plan

WP TWC, EA, EH

DR2 Major flooding-related

accident, e.g. damage caused

by flood-borne debris

Liaison with

Emergency Services

All partners

DR3 Pollution events 1.

Major Potential incident at E-

ON Power Station – either to

coal tips or in the

decommissioning process

Liaison with

Environment Agency,

Power Station and

Emergency Services

EA, TWC

Pollution events 2.

Major Potential incident

upstream

Liaison with

Environment Agency

and Emergency

Services

EA, TWC

Pollution events 3.

Local

Publicise Environment

Agency pollution

control advice to

adjoining landowners

and businesses

EA, TWC

DR4 Storm damage and tree fall Liaison with EA, TWC

and SGCT

EA, TWC,

SGCT

DR5 Instability resulting in

fracture of the concrete raft

under water or members of

the Bridge

Constant monitoring of

the Bridge and slopes

of the Gorge

EA, TWC,

SGCT

DR6 Instability resulting in

slipping of sides of the Gorge

Liaison with TWC, EA

and SGCT

EA, TWC,

SGCT


Appendix 3

127


Appendix 4

128

Appendix 4

Map regression


Appendix 4

129

Appendix 4 Map regression

1808, Robert Baugh

1847 Tithe map. Nothing on the south side of the river was within the Madeley Tithe, so it was not included on

the map. Here it has been rotated through 90 degrees. IGMT

The only road towards

Madeley is Church Hill,

opened in 1781 as part of the

Bridge access works

Group of buildings erected

by 1837, including two

shops with doors onto the

Bridge. A warehouse was

by the river bank.

Tontine stables

against the road,

built 1817

Tontine Hotel, 1784

Market buildings,

1793


Appendix 4

130

1883. Edina Digimap

1902. IGMT

Ironbridge & Broseley station,

Severn Valley Railway, opened

1862

The lowest building of

this group blocked the

accommodation arch

The White Brick

& Tile Works

A domestic property next

door to the Tollhouse,

built by1855


Appendix 4

131

1927. IGMT

c1967. Edina Digimap

Tontine stables

were demolished

between 1949 and

1952

Severn Valley Railway

closed 1963

World War I war memorial

erected in the Square

Brick & Tile

Works gone

Group of buildings that were

against the Bridge were

demolished in May 1946

War memorial

re-sited 1965

Domestic property

next to the Tollhouse

demolished by 1965


Appendix 4

132

1990s map. Edina Digimap

2011 GIS map. EH

Road realigned.

Viewing platforms

built 1976

Underwater

concrete strut

built 1973-4

Site of railway sidings

turned into a car park, 1975


Appendix 4

133


Appendix 5 134

Appendix 5

Understanding the

development of the

Bridge: details


Appendix 5 135

Appendix 5 Understanding the development of the Bridge - details

Single iron arch, between masonry abutments, 1779-1801

The original design was for a 120ft arch in cast iron without any towpaths, conceived by Shrewsbury

architect Thomas Farnolls Pritchard in 1775, but the final shape strongly echoes his earlier 50ft-span

masonry bridge built near Ludlow in 1772. The footings for the new Bridge were built up to base

plate level by October 1778, but Pritchard‟s death the previous December meant that the detailed

design of the ironwork owes more to the Quaker ironmaster Abraham Darby III and his foreman

patternmaker Thomas Gregory. The Bridge was erected in three short months in the summer of 1779,

the ironwork being essentially a free-standing structure anchored into, but not braced by the

abutments. The uprights were built perpendicular on the Tontine side, but on the Broseley side they

settled at an angle. The rest of the abutments and the road connections took longer to complete so the

Bridge was not opened to traffic until 1st January 1781. The Tollhouse was built in 1783 and already

in the following year cracks were recorded in the south abutment. They continued to worsen until

1798 when tie bars were added to both abutments. The lowest sections of the upper ribs were not

added until 1791.

1772

Bringewood Forge Bridge, 6km west of Ludlow

over the River Teme, designed by Thomas

Farnolls Pritchard in 1772 and erected the same

year. 50 ft span. The general arrangement and

proportions were repeated in the Iron Bridge,

including abutments with accommodation arches.

ICE Historic Engineering Work No 1278.

1775

Thomas Farnolls Pritchard‟s design of 1775 for a

cast iron bridge „between Madeley and Broseley‟

differs from the final arrangement in that the

ironwork was altered to allow for a towpath. [from

„On Cementitious Architecture...‟ by John White,

Philosophical Magazine & Annals, Vol XI, p183,

1832]. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust,

IGMT.1986.8609.1

c1777

Pencil and wash sketch by William Williams

looking upstream, annotated “A View on the

River Severn at Madley (sic) near Coalbrook

Dale and where the iron bridge is to be built”. The

road coming down to the river clearly shows the

Bridge would replace a ferry crossing, jointly

owned by Edward Harries and Abraham Darby.

Aberdeen Art Gallery, 70515-1. IGMT.1985.197.

1 Negative or accession number; those prefixed IGMT are from the collections of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust.


Appendix 5 136

Pencil sketch by Joseph Farington from near Hay

Farm about a mile downstream. Though this was

actually drawn on 25th September 1789 and

therefore already shows the Bridge in place, its

viewpoint high up on the hillside allows the

structure to be clearly seen in its setting. It is

possible to locate the sandstone quarries for the

abutments, the one on the Broseley side being re-

discovered in 1999. The site is marked by a small

shelf where the stone outcrops and its quarrying

produces a wider working platform. On the opposite bank is a matching platform where the same

strata outcrops again (the latter shelf was wider then, but is no longer accessible as it has since

been built over). This is one of two sketches of the area by Farington done within a day of each

other, and his powers of observation have proved to be very accurate. IGMT.CBD.59.129.

1779

Watercolour sketch by Elias Martin, looking

upstream, undated but July 1779, as the first arch

went up on 1st and 2nd July according to a

newspaper account in the Shrewsbury Chronicle,

10th July. It shows a flimsy scaffold downstream of

the ironwork, with three of the five ribs in place,

the inner verticals, and a few timber struts to keep

the castings in their relative positions. Most

importantly, there is no sign of the abutments

above the base plates at this stage. This is still the

only known image of the Bridge under

construction. Skandia Company collection,

Stockholm.

1780

Oil painting by William Williams, looking

upstream. It was done before the Bridge was

finished, having been commissioned by Abraham

Darby III for 10 guineas and paid for in October

1780 [Abraham Darby‟s personal cash book for

1771-81, IGMT.1993.3374]. It is essentially an

engineering drawing (see below SSMT.34 of

1782) superimposed on the 1777 sketch above. As

this showed a front elevation of the ironwork, the

artist chose a viewpoint that was the least

complicated regarding the perspective. Conceived

as a promotional image, it shows the Bridge

already in use and the „missing ribs‟ in place.

However, the Bridge did not open till 1st January

1781 and the missing ribs were not added until

after June 1791. IGMT.1992.12918.

Watercolour by Michael Angelo Rooker, based

on the Williams oil painting above which he

simplified for engraving; Rooker‟s picture was

commissioned by Abraham Darby III at £29 and

paid for in January 1781 [Abraham Darby‟s

personal cash book, IGMT.1993.3374]. Aberdeen

Art Gallery. IGMT.1983.1932.


Appendix 5 137

Woodcut by J Edmunds of Madeley, correctly

showing the lowest section of the upper (outer)

ribs missing. The text below the picture says the

Bridge was cast in 1778, and erected in 1779 and

1780. IGMT.1981.20.

1781

On 1st January the Bridge was opened to traffic. There was no Tollhouse when the Bridge first

opened, but one had been built by the time the tolls were auctioned in October 1783 [Bridge

Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 9th Feb 1781, SRO.3689-982]. The first image to include the

Tollhouse is by Burney in 1784 (see below, IGMT.1973.202).

c1781

Souvenir snuff or patch box, captioned

„A Present from the Iron Bridge‟, based on the

Edmunds woodcut above of 1780

(IGMT.1973.132), and showing the missing ribs

(see P115‟51.E29 of c1790). Ironbridge Gorge

Museum Trust, IGMT.L198.

1782

Engraving by William Ellis after Michael Angelo

Rooker, from the watercolour of 1780 in the

Aberdeen Art Gallery (which in turn was based on

the 1780 Williams oil above). Subscribers also

received an engineering drawing (see below).

IGMT.1983.1933.

Engineering drawing published by James

Phillips, 1782, issued with the Rooker

engraving. The original must have been made

available to Williams in 1780, which allowed

him to copy the detailed arrangement of the

ironwork. The text confirms that “All the

principal parts were erected in three Months

without any accident either to the work or the

workmen.” IGMT.SS/MT.43.

2 SRO, Shropshire Record Office reference (since re-named Shropshire Records and Research).


Appendix 5 138

Aquatint by E Edgcombe, published 1st May

1872, 1st edition, looking upstream and showing

the upper ribs missing below the lower cross

stays. A 2nd edition with minor changes was

published in 1786. British Library, Map Library,

King‟s Topography. BL/ML.KT.36/26d.

1784

By July 1784 the Tontine hotel had opened as a building of 3 bays wide, designed by Shrewsbury

architect John Hiram Haycock. The name „Tontine‟ was not adopted until October that year. In

December cracks were recorded on the south abutment.

The trustees “Ordered that the Cracks in the Arch on the Benthall Side be gaged and examined if

it goes any worse.” [Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 3rd December 1784, SRO.3689-

98]. This is presumably the accommodation arch that was within the south abutment. (See also

entries for 1792, 1798, 1799 and 1801).

Engraving by Thomas Frederick Burney, looking

downstream, after an original watercolour now in

the Mellon Collection, Connecticut. This is the

earliest image to include the Tollhouse, which

had not been built when the Bridge first opened in

January 1781. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust,

IGMT.SSMT/33.

1786

Aquatint by E Edgcombe, 2nd edition, l786, looking upstream and showing the missing ribs.

The 1st edition with minor differences was published in 1782. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust,

IGMT.SS/MT 40.

The trustees “...Ordered that Lamps be put up ... Two on the Centre of the Bridge...” [Bridge

Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 8th December 1786, SRO.3689-98]. Shropshire Record

Office. Earlier paintings and prints already show two lamps, but this is assumed to be artistic

licence. Later photographs only ever show a single lamp, placed on the upstream parapet.

Pencil sketch of c1786 by Sir Richard Colt Hoare,

looking upstream, the earliest view to include the

Tontine Inn, which had opened in 1784 as a

building of 3 bays wide and was extended 1786-7

to 5 bays. Hoare shows two pilasters by the

accommodation arch on the south abutment. Like

many other artists, he had trouble drawing the

Bridge and made a second attempt near the top of

the page. Cardiff Public Library, IGMT.A1833.


Appendix 5 139

1786-7

The Tontine hotel was enlarged from 3 to 5 bays and the stable block built, the work being directed

by Samuel Wright of Kidderminster.

1787

The trustees “Ordered that the Iron Railings be painted a deep Lead Colour for Iron” [Bridge

Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 8th June 1787, SRO.3689-98].

A mahogany model of the Bridge, 1/24 scale, was

presented to the Royal Society of Arts in 1787,

for which Darby received the Gold Medal the

following year. The model is in the collection of

the Science Museum. It is interesting that it shows

the Bridge with the completed upper ribs despite

the fact they had not yet been built (see 1791

entries below). This suggests it was made from the Phillips engineering drawing of 1782. Science

Museum photo 31936. IGMT.1984.6134.1.

1788

(above, left) Oil painting by George Robertson, looking downstream from the north bank. The

massive south abutment can be seen with its accommodation arch flanked by pilasters.

IGMT.1978.82.

(above, right) Engraving by Francis Chesham after George Robertson, looking downstream.

It shows that the pilasters on either side of the accommodation arch were repeated on the

downstream side as well. The depth of the Gorge is exaggerated. Elton Collection,

IGMT.AE185.765.

1789

The trustees “...Ordered that a Bar of Iron be fixed on each Side of the Bridge to the Iron Work

and to communicate with the River as a Conductor in case of Lightening ...” [Bridge Proprietors‟

Minute Book, 1775-98, 5th June 1789, SRO.3689-98]. Given that the Bridge was of iron this was

entirely unnecessary.

before 1791

Architect‟s drawing, artist unknown but from a

folder that belonged to Thomas Sandby. It shows

the missing rib (the lowest section of the upper rib

from the base plate up to the first horizontal stay),

fitted in 1791. The left quadrant is annotated with

dimensions that are the cross sections of the

castings. Royal Library Windsor Castle,

RL.17929B (IGMT.1993.743).


Appendix 5 140

Pencil sketch by John Russell, showing the

underside of an unfinished joint where one of the

missing ribs will fit. Birmingham Museum & Art

Gallery, P115‟51.E29 (IGMT.1993.744).

1791

The trustees “Ordered that the Ironwork at the

Bridge be improved by finishing out the back Iron

Ribs to support the Crofspieces and strenthen [sic]

the Bridge ...” [Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book,

1775-98, 3rd June 1791, SRO.3689-98. ]. This

was for the lowest sections of the upper ribs, and

their installation completed the Bridge as

originally shown in the engineering drawing of 1782. There are 10 castings, one for each of the

five frames on each quadrant, and they are the only hollow castings on the Bridge (proved by an

ultrasound test made for the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust on 1st July 1996).

1792

The trustees “...Ordered that the butment [sic] of the Bridge on the Benthall side be put into

repair.” [Bridge Proprietors‟ Minute Book, 1775-98, 7th December 1792, SRO.3689-98]

c1795

Aquatint by J Baker, looking downstream. This is

the earliest image of the completed Bridge which

correctly includes the previously „missing‟ ribs.

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust,

IGMT.SSMT/34.

1798

The trustees “Ordered the Abutments of Bridge & Ironwork be repaired”. [Bridge Proprietors‟

Minute Book, 1775-98, 8th June 1798, SRO.3689-98]. This included iron tie bars through the

abutments (see 1799 below).

The Coalbrookdale Company did the work, whose bill is recorded at £118/8/6 on 10th October

1789, suggesting that the job was a considerable one [Coalbrookdale Company Settling Journal,

1789-1808, p14, IGMT.CBD.59.82.4. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Library & Archive].

„Svedenstierna‟s Tour of Great Britain 1802-3‟ (translated by EL Dellow, 1973, p71) refers to the

above repair: “Some time earlier, before I came there, the ground at one end had yielded, and yet

people drove over the bridge without noticing it, until some bolts had either broken or bent, and it

was clearly seen, that certain parts of the structure began to separate. These parts were screwed

together, the arch was tightened up as well as possible, and meanwhile the displaced abutment was

strengthened, without the bridge having once been unusable on this account.” IGMT.1975.111.

1799

In a letter from Simon Goodrich of 8th December 1799 there is evidence of iron tie rods having

been inserted in the (south) abutment: “... the Abutments have suffered from the violence of some

high floods [especially the one of 12th February 1795, the highest on record] and the one that has

been the longest has been perforated with iron bars clamped at the ends with other flat bars in

order to keep the Stones together.” Goodrich Collection, Science Museum.


Appendix 5 141

The south abutment demolished and replaced by two timber land arches, 1802-4

Tie bars had been added to both abutments in 1798, but on the south side proved inadequate as the

bank continued to move so the abutment was demolished in 1802. A temporary wooden bridge was

built to straddle the gap while masonry was removed and two stone piers were built, and from 1803 a

pair of more permanent timber lattice spans provided the road deck from the Tollhouse up to the main

arch. These remained in place until 1823 when they were replaced by cast-iron arches. The Tollhouse

building was doubled in size in 1835 and a group of buildings were erected against the north

abutment in 1837, surviving until 1946.

1800

Lithograph by F Calvert after Samuel Ireland,

looking upstream. Ireland had died in 1800 and

the picture first appeared in Thomas Harral‟s

„Picturesque Views of the Severn‟ of 1824. It

shows the south abutment in its original form. It

also shows the stable block below the Tontine with

its cupola vent on the roof, built 1786-7 when the

Tontine hotel was enlarged from 3 to 5 bays, the

work being directed by Samuel Wright of

Kidderminster. IGMT.1836.

The Bridge trustees order 2,000 ft of 3 inch oak

planks for a temporary bridge over the south abutment. [Minute Book of the Bridge Trustees,

1800-1828, December 5th 1800, SRO.6001.3697].

1801

On 6th March 1801 the Bridge trustees ordered “there to be a Temporary Bridge made over the

abutment on the Benthall side ... according to a plan shown by Mr Thos Thomas... and as soon as

the said Bridge is compleated [sic] that all the soil be taken from under the sd Bridge from the Iron

work to the dry arch ...” – This was effectively an instruction to remove the whole of the south

abutment from the outer vertical right back to a line with the far wall of the accommodation arch.

Thomas was also requested (on 15th April 1801) to measure the span “to ascertain if the said

abutment moves.” He reported back on 29th April that both abutments did move, though how he

measured this is not recorded. More importantly, he noted “that part of the Iron work on each side

is Broke from the pressure of the abutments.”

Judging by the instruction to entirely remove one of the abutments, it is safe to assume that the

fractures were low down. They may have been at the junction where the ribs pass through the

horizontal stays as there are fractures here on both sides, but these breaks have little effect on the

integrity of the structure. However, it is more likely that the part that was „Broke‟ on the south

side is the fracture to the base plate between frames D and E, which was visible in a late

nineteenth century photograph (see IGMT.1982.2199 of c1890).

In early May 1801 the Trustees urgently investigated a scheme proposed by Henry Williams to

hold the abutments apart by an underwater strut of timber, but rejected it a week later on 12 th May,

when they ordered “40 Tons of Good Timr ...”. This is in addition to the 2,000 ft of oak planks

ordered in December the previous year, and must be the material billed by the Coalbrookdale

Company in 1803 (see below). They also ordered substantial foundations to be made in order to

turn the back wall of the accommodation arch into the new end of the south abutment (though the

Secretary mistakenly entered the word „Madeley‟ instead of „Benthall‟ in the minutes). The entry

ordered “that a platform of timber be prepared and made and plancks [sic] prepared to cover from

the Iron work of the Bridge to the back wall of the Dry arch to be built by Saml and William

Smith...” [Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1800-1828, SRO.6001.3697].


Appendix 5 142

1802

Pencil sketch by Paul Sandby Munn‟s of 11th July

1802, looking upstream, showing the demolition

of the south abutment in progress. A temporary

wooden way was built which can be seen on the

left of the sketch, but this was before the stone

piers were built and more substantial timber

installed in 1803. A „temporary‟ wrought iron

brace was added above the upper cross stay,

though was never removed. The work was started by James Parry [Bridge Trustees Minute Book,

1800-1828, 1st July 1803, SRO.6001.3697], but he was later dismissed and it was completed by

Shrewsbury architect John Simpson. Victoria & Albert Museum, E3112/1948.

Another pencil sketch by Paul Sandby Munn of

11th July 1802, also looking upstream but a more

distant view. It shows the stable block below the

Tontine with its cupola vent on the roof. Victoria

& Albert Museum, E214-1939.

1803-4

In August 1803 the trustees ordered that two piers be built as quickly as possible and the

temporary wooden bridge over the gap left by the removal of the south abutment be secured. The

work was done under the direction of Shrewsbury architect John Simpson and was not finished

until the summer of 1804. The wooden deck of the new side arches was covered with 6 inches of

clay topped with ashes, while the rest of the timber was coated with coal tar. Once the job was

completed, the spare timber was sold off at auction on 17 th August 1804. [Minute Book of the

Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1800-1828, SRO.6001.3697].

The timber had been supplied by the Coalbrookdale Company and consisted of “2 Lots slabs, 55

planks, 117 Rafters, 8 Deal and 9 Oak Planks, 200 ft Oak Scantlings, 366 ft Elm Boards”. The

total cost was £16/11/1 and was billed on 4th August 1804. The entry for „2 Lots slabs‟ was for the

iron plates that capped the inner pier. A later photograph (see below under 1975,

IGMT.1981.154) revealed that the masonry of this pier was covered by iron plain deck plates

matching those on the main arch, while deck plates spanning the later iron side arches (of 1821)

had rising flanges. [Coalbrookdale Company Settling Journal, 1789-1808, p271,

IGMT.CBD.59.82.4]. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Library & Archive.

The ironwork of the Bridge must have already been noticeably out of plumb (built that way rather

than the result of movement), but the masonry of the new inner pier was built vertical, requiring

considerable cutting of the upper stonework to minimise the effect. The difference was halved,

with the upper portions of the ironwork being recessed into the stone blocks and the lower parts

standing proud – as they are to this day.

The building opposite the Tollhouse dates as far back as 1804, when the Trustees “ordered that

the shed near the Bridge Gate be tiled.” [Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1800-

1828. December 7th 1804, SRO.6001.3697].


Appendix 5 143

Between 1804-21

Anonymous pencil sketch looking downstream,

showing the timber side arches. The artist has

drawn the main beam and the railings as two tiers

of the same arrangement, but other artists clearly

show the railings to be half the proportion of the

beam (see W Smith, and AH Howe of 1810,

below). The railings at bridge deck level were

probably cast iron, as a section of them looking

just like this survived next to the Tollhouse until

1979. The rest of the structure was timber.

National Library of Wales, p38vol90.

1808

On 3rd June 1808 the Trustees ordered “that a New Oak Toll Gate & Posts be put up on the

Bridge. [Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1800-1828, SRO.6001.3697]. These

were replaced in 1852 (see below).

1810

Lithograph by W Smith looking upstream, which

clearly shows the string courses on the masonry

piers from which the timber arches rise. A

substantial timber lattice beam is supported on

diagonal struts that rest on the string courses.

Above this beam is an iron railing mimicking the

timber, but half the proportion. The Tontine

stables are shown as a 2-storey building with a

cupola. Shropshire County Library collection.

c1810

Detail of a pen and wash drawing by Arthur

Holdsworth Howe c1810, looking upstream from

the north bank. The bridge deck is supported on a

lattice timber beam, stiffened in turn by raking

struts which rest on the string courses of the new

piers. The railings mimic the lattice arrangement

of the timber, but at a smaller scale. These were

probably of iron, as railings of this design

survived near the Tollhouse until 1979. Ironbridge

Gorge Museum Trust, IGMT.1978.225.3.

1812

The Trustees ordered “that a Table of Tolls be put up at the Iron Bridge gate (December 4 th 1812).

[Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1800-1828, SRO.6001.3697].

The painted cast iron tollboard listed the charges

laid out in the original 1776 Act of Parliament

and remained in place until 1950, being re-sited in

its original location in 1975 when the Tollhouse

was restored. In the 1980s it was removed inside

the Tollhouse and a more legible modern copy

placed outside. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust,

IGMT.1981.1881.


Appendix 5 144

1817-18

Pencil and sepia wash sketch by Joseph Powell

looking upstream, drawn after the Tontine stables

burnt down in 1817, but before 1821 when the

timber arches were replaced in iron. This is the

earliest-known view of the new stable block,

which was built further back than its predecessor.

Powell‟s sketch book of 1816-18, Victoria &

Albert Museum E1857-1946.

The timber arches on the south abutment replaced with iron arches, 1821-3

The Coalbrookdale Company were asked in December 1818 to estimate for replacing the timber side

arches in iron, which they did on April 15th 1819. However, the price proved “to be more than was

expected” and the work was not approved until December 1820. Work began in the summer of 1821,

and was completed when the new iron arches were painted in 1823 [Minute Book of the Trustees of

the Iron Bridge, 1800-1828, SRO.6001.3697].

1821

A diary entry by Joshua Field

for 25th August on his tour of

1821 stated “The great arch

only was of iron and 2 side

arches of wood which are now

so decay‟d that iron arches are

putting up in their place. The

ribs of one ½ the bridge are

up, and the road contracted to

½ the width.” [Transactions of

the Newcomen Society, Vol

VI (1925-6) p31]. In the

detail from the survey

drawing of 1999 (left) it can

be seen that there are columns

of small stones next to the

ironwork in the upper levels,

which were used to infill the spaces left by the removal of the wider timber struts. Ironbridge

Archaeology.

1823

Coalport china cup with hand-painted view of the

Bridge from downstream. The source was the W Smith

lithograph (of 1810 above), but with the land arch re-

drawn. As a result, it shows the original stable block,

even though this had burnt down in 1817. Made at the

nearby Coalport factory, the cup was probably

commissioned to commemorate the completion of the

new side arches. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Elton

Collection, IGMT.AE185.1806.


Appendix 5 145

Tollhouse enlarged, 1835/6

On 17th July 1835 the Trustees of the Iron Bridge ordered that the Tollhouse should be enlarged

under the direction of Samuel Smith and Surveyor William Smith. At a final cost of £145/18/6, the

bill was settled in two parts, on 4th December 1835 and 3rd June 1836. The building was doubled in

length, so now had two rooms side by side above the deck level. [Minute Book of the Trustees of the

Iron Bridge, 1830-1861, SRO.6001.3698].

1835

Lithograph by William Westwood looking

downstream. Published early in 1835, this image still

shows the building in its original form before being

enlarged. The railings on the stretch right next to the

Tollhouse are a survival from the ones seen on views

of 1804-1821 with the timber arches. The earliest-

known artist‟s view to include the enlarged

Tollhouse is 1856. IGMT.1973.37.1.

Block of buildings on the upstream side of the north abutment, c1836

1837

Watercolour attributed to J Fidlor, looking

downstream from the Wharfage, showing the

substantial block of buildings grouped around the

north-west end of the Bridge. A bill head of 1841

(see A743 below) confirms this block was there, and

a companion painting by Fidlor in the Shrewsbury

Museum collection includes St Luke‟s church, which

was completed in 1837. The exact date the block

was erected is still unknown, but is assumed to be

1836. IGMT.1978.73.

1839

On 6th December 1839 the Trustees ordered that gas

lamps be added to the Bridge, one on either side of

the toll gate and one on the centre of the upstream

parapet. Apart from paintings and engravings done

before 1800 (Williams, Rooker, Edmunds,

Edgcombe, Burney, Robertson and Baker), there are

no images showing lamps on the Bridge before 1856

(see below IGMT.SSMT/36 for 1856). These early

views may all have copied the lamp from the 1782

engineering drawing (IGMT.SS/MT 43), which had

included lamps because their cost was allowed for in

the original estimate of 1775, though it was not until

1786 that the records first include the instruction to

install two lamps at the crown of the Bridge. In the

1839 order there is no mention of a lamp on the

downstream parapet, nor any later photographic

evidence of there ever having been a lamp on this side. However, a site survey in 1999 [Ironbridge

Institute photograph 30.24, of 23rd December 1999] showed that the overhanging deck plates at

the crown were made with a hole for a lamp support. Gas bills appeared in the Bridge account


Appendix 5 146

books from 1841 at six-monthly intervals, starting at £4/10/0. [Minute Book of the Trustees of the

Iron Bridge, 1830-1861, SRO.6001.3698].

Photograph (left, one of a stereo pair of c1900, IGMT.1981.1569) showing the gas lamp at the

crown of the Bridge on the upstream parapet.

1841

Bill head by W Bangham for Edward Edwards, linen

and woollen draper, provides the earliest dated view of

the buildings on the north abutment, later occupied by

Bates & Hunt, chemist. It was demolished in 1946. The

view is looking upstream from the square. SRO,

Labouchère Collection, IGMT.A743.

Repairs to the ironwork of the land arches, 1845, 1846, 1861 and 1879

Repairs in the 19th century were all concerned with the iron land arches – reinforcing plates being

added on at least four occasions. The 1861 work included horizontal spacers between the iron frames

of the inner of the two arches (the one nearest the river).

1845

The Trustees‟ Minute Book for 5th December 1845 reports that “... considerable repairs have been

needed to the Land Arches which have been done by the Coalbrookdale Company, the Surveyor

be ordered to pay the amount of their a/c £95/17/2.” This must have been for the first series of the

many bolted-on plates. [Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1830-1861,

SRO.6001.3698].

1846

On 4th December 1846 a further Coalbrookdale Company bill “for repairing the Bridge” was

settled at £9/16/5. The exact work is unspecified, but will have been for ironwork. [Bridge

Proprietors Minute Book, 1841-1861, SRO.6001.3694].

1852

New wooden gates and posts were installed by John Griffiths of Coalport. The order came from

the Trustees 4th June 1852 and was paid on 2nd December, at £11/3/0. [Bridge Proprietors Minute

Book, 1841-1861, SRO. 6001.3694].

Photograph (detail). The enlarged Tollhouse is

evident, plus a new dwelling abutting it in the

foreground. The wooden tollgate survived until at

least 1896. IGMT.1988.274.


Appendix 5 147

c1856

Chromolithograph by John Cox Bayliss, a distant

view from downstream on the south bank. The

base of the burnt down Tontine stable block is

still evident and its new replacement can be seen

further back. The Tollhouse is in its enlarged

form, having been extended 1835/6.

IGMT.SS/MT.36.

1861

On April 19th 1861 the Trustees of the Iron Bridge

agreed “to have the necessary repairs as suggested

[by Mr Darby] made to the Bridge provided the

estimate cost thereof do not exceed the sum of

£100.” [Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron

Bridge, 1830-1861, SRO.6001.3698]. Further

plates were added, plus the horizontal spacers

between the ribs on the inner land arch (photo left,

November 1999).

1862

Drinking fountain obelisk erected in the Square near the Tontine. The Severn Valley Railway opens,

with Ironbridge station on the south bank of the river right by the Bridge (renamed Ironbridge &

Broseley in 1895). Both these landmarks allow the more accurate dating of photographs.

by 1866

A „Machinery House‟ is used for a weighbridge mechanism opposite the Tollhouse. [Madeley

Board of Guardians‟ Minute Book, 4th January 1867, confirms the building‟s use at that date]. The

building is still standing today, the sloping of the front wall already being evident by 1921 (see

IGMT.1982.2807). The building dates as far back as 1804, when the Trustees “ordered that the

shed near the Bridge Gate be tiled.” [Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1800-1828.

December 7th 1804, SRO.6001.3697].

1879

Further repairs to the land arches. Some plates are cut to fit round the horizontal spacers referred to

above (1860s), showing they were added later.

Girders added to the inner land arch, 1880

The Coalbrookdale Company provide and install 4 cast iron girders, one between each of the ribs of

the inner land arch, for £125/10/-. Messrs Nevitts do the associated work repairing and replacing

masonry as necessary, for a further £126/15/3. The former bill is settled in November, the latter in

two parts, on 24th September 1880 and 26th March 1881. The ironwork comprised “4 Cast Iron

Girders 32ft long; 2 cast Iron distance Pieces [why there are only 2 and exactly what they are for is

unknown, though they might have been replacement horizontal spacers for ones originally added

in 1861]; 22 Heads for Railings; 3 Brackets, 1 cast Iron Plate; also wrought iron Plates; glands,

Cramps ties; Railings, Brass and lead for fixing the whole; Delivered and fixed in position.” The

masonry work was described as being “...for repairs to Stone Walling, Cutting holes for Girders and

taking down and rebuilding Piers and cutting out and replacing decayed Stone and repointing the

stone work including finding and erecting all scaffolding.” The bill included some Grinshill stone


Appendix 5 148

(limestone), undoubtedly the capping stones of the piers above deck level. [Expenditure for the repair

of the Iron Bridge, 1861-1881, SRO.6001.3695].

An engineer‟s report of 1923 by Mott, Hay &

Anderson refers to the large beams being 1ft 9in at

the centre and 1ft 6in at their ends [IGMT

1991.2606]. Site investigation in December 1999

confirmed that the bottom of each beam is straight,

while the top is curved, accounting for the

difference in the dimensions. The profile follows

the arching of the road deck, though the beams no

longer come into direct contact with the deck

plates. Each beam is individually numbered using

a numeral cast on to the vertical face; these run

from 1 to 4, starting from the downstream end, unlike the ribs of the main arch which by

convention are described as running from A to E starting from the upstream end. [Ironbridge

Institute record photograph 2.10, (left) 18th November 1999].

c1880

A photographic postcard (Francis Frith No 13017;

numbers lower than 18521 are before 1886)

looking upstream from the north tow path. The tilt

of the outer vertical of frame E on the south

quadrant is clearly visible, a discrepancy that

already existed when the piers were built in 1803.

The fractured base plate on the south side

(between frames D and E) is visible, which is

probably the one recorded as early as 1801. The

inner vertical on the north quadrant frame E is

still straight, though will later be seen to bend over from near the mid point. There are no railings

on the south bank towpath, but a rough timber one on the north bank. Three chimneys stacks are on

the Tollhouse; the section of railings opposite the Tollhouse survives as a legacy from the earlier

timber side arches. Plating and horizontal spacers are visible on the inner side arch, but no plating

is visible on the outer side arch. The decorative top of the brickworks chimney is there, but will be

blown off in a storm in March 1895. IGMT.1982.2199.

A slight buckling of the bridge deck over the inner

land arch is evident (detail of photograph

IGMT.1982.2199).

1888

The parapet wall by the Chemist was taken down and rebuilt, the bill for £12/0/0 paid on 16 th

April 1888. [Expenditure for the repair of the Iron Bridge, 1861-1881, SRO.6001.3695].


Appendix 5 149

Deck bearers no longer in a straight line, visible above the inner verticals, c1890

Pressure from land movement on the north bank (town side) acted on the middle of the abutment and

so was concentrated through the upper horizontal cross stays, causing the inner verticals to snap just

above them. This in turn caused the main deck bearers to fracture at the top of the inner verticals

resulting in a slight buckle of the previously straight beams. Many of the decorative radials were also

fractured by this thrust, but only on the north quadrant.

c1890

Photograph from a field above Bower Yard,

looking downstream. A storage building is right

against the north abutment next to the tow path,

the first time this building appears in photographs.

There is a Severn trow on the south bank (the last

boat sailed in 1895). There are no trees near the

water because of the towpath. The chimney of the

White Brick Works, known as the „White

Brickle‟, can be seen on the left, still with its

decorative top (which was later blown off in a

gale of 24th March 1895). There is evidence of

the deck bearers being slightly out of line where

they cross the inner uprights, visible for the first time in this photograph. IGMT.1986.11909

The photograph (left) taken in February 2010 shows that the

movement continued. Repairs addressed the weakness of the

deck beams in 1927 through the addition of bolted-on

saddles at the junction of the verticals and the beams

(circled in white).

1892

(above right) Detail of photograph from just above the towpath on the south bank, looking

downstream. Storage building against the north abutment next to the tow path. The trow in the

foreground is the same one as in a dated Frith postcard of 1892 (IGMT.1986.10996 above). No

railings along the north tow path. A substantial brick wall along the Wharfage. IGMT.1984.6350.

1895

On Sunday 24th March 1895 a gale blew the top of the White Brick Works chimney stack off, which

had been built in 1871. Wellington Journal & Shrewsbury News, 30 th March 1895, p7. The presence

or absence of its distinctive decorative top (see IGMT.1982.2199 of c1880) acts as a useful

benchmark for dating photographs.


Appendix 5 150

1896

Photograph of 1896 from a bound set by Frith,

wrongly titled „Ironbridge from East‟ (Francis

Frith No 38106) as it is looking downstream and

therefore from the west. The Tollhouse has three

chimneys (it was enlarged in 1835). There are no

trees along the Wharfage, confirming this image

is before June 1897 when they were planted as

part of Queen Victoria‟s Jubilee,

IGMT.1981.145.1.

Photograph (Francis Frith No 38110) showing

buildings on either side of the north abutment. The

wooden tollgate installed in 1852 is still there. No

footpaths on the Bridge (what can be seen on the

left is the shadow of the railing).

IGMT.1999.1115.

Tilting of the verticals on the main arch, 1896

Pressure from the south abutment had already caused thrusts against the ironwork, but an earthquake

on 17th December 1896 allowed trapped tension to be released and the base plates dipped, possibly

due to compacting strata. As a result the deck beams above the inner verticals have a more

pronounced kink and the upper sections of the verticals lean back.

1897

A view from Benthall Edge looking downstream.

Newly planted trees along the Wharfage to

commemorate Queen Victoria‟s Diamond Jubilee,

a useful reference date for images (planted June

1897, the decision being reported in the

Wellington Journal of 8th May 1897). The

brickworks chimney had lost its top, blown down

in the gale of 24th March 1895. IGMT.1999.1116.

c1897

Photograph looking downstream from the towpath

on the south bank. Very slight tilting back of the

top section of the inner vertical, north quadrant,

frame A, due mainly to pressure from the north

abutment and probably exacerbated by the

earthquake of 17th December 1896. The tilting of

the outer uprights on the south quadrant is just

visible. The deck plates of the main arch are not

in a straight line (both north and south quadrants),

which was already visible in 1890, and the deck

of the inner land arch is buckled. Plating of the

ribs on frame A of the inner land arch is visible. No railings along the towpath on the north bank.

IGMT.1981.53. Wrought iron rods are visible linking upper radial Re and Rf to the north quadrant


Appendix 5 151

deck bearer, which were still there in March 2010 (below, photographs of radial Re and Rf, 1999).

c1897-1900

Photograph looking north east from the south

towpath. Due to low water, the change in alignment

of the north abutment can be seen 8 courses below

the base plates (arrowed). This correction must date

from 1778. Rib D on the north quadrant is out of

alignment with the other ribs, and was built like

this (the dipping of the upper horizontal brace

between frames E and D shows the change of line).

The horizontal braces and straps are the original

configuration, without the later additions. There are

no obvious signs of fractures to the radials apart

from the repairs to the tops of radials Re and Rf on

the north quadrant of frame A. The deck plates are

not in a perfect line; they begin to rise again on the

north quadrant near the circle, marking the

fractures above the inner uprights. There are

reinforcing straps on the lamp (see IGMT.1981.150

of 1972). The storage building upstream of the

Bridge comes close to the edge of the abutment and

there is a low stone wall on the downstream side of the abutment. IGMT.1981.67.

Water main next to the downstream railing; deck end repairs, and lower horizontal and diagonal

straps added to the main arch, 1902

On Sunday 24th August “about 30 ft of palisading [on the downstream side of the north quadrant] had

fallen into the Severn below... It is conjectured that foundations have been shaken through the recent

pipe laying.” [Wellington Journal, 30th August 1902]. The earthquake of 1896 may have been a

contributing factor. It took the deck plate ends with it and required the manufacture of new ends that

could be bolted on. Several other ends were repaired at the same time, identifiable by three bolts

underneath the deck plate just inside frame E or A. The “pipe laying” was the rectangular iron water

main that sat on the Bridge road deck next to the downstream railings. Ironbridge Gorge Museum

Trust, Library & Archive.


Appendix 5 152

1902

Detail of a photographic postcard looking from

the south, undated but 1902. It shows a

temporary wooden fence running parallel with

the downstream parapet of the Bridge, where a

water main is being installed (see below). It also

shows a protruding platform outside the upstream

parapet on the south quadrant. IGMT.1986.6322.

As a result of a report by Sir Benjamin Baker

submitted on 8th October 1902 [Chrimes, pers

com, 2000], the Coalbrookdale Company make

new ends for the damaged deck plates which

broke off on Sunday 24th August 1902, supply

and fit straps between the inner uprights about

1ft 6in above the base plates and sleeving for the

diagonal brace, their Order No 4388. No copy of

Baker‟s report has yet been found, but the

drawings relating to Order 4388 survive in the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Library &

Archive. IGMT.1972.12, 13 and 15.

Coalbrookdale Company engineering drawing of 1902 (left), which shows the repair to the ends of

the deck plates, though when executed square bolts were used (right) rather than the hexagonal

ones shown on the drawing. Many more plates were repaired than just the 30ft length mentioned in

the newspaper. IGMT.1972.13.


Appendix 5 153

Coalbrookdale Company engineering drawing of 1902, which shows details of the horizontal

braces; CBD drawing no 2516, part of Order No 4388, is for these steel straps and cast iron

blocks, which were installed on both banks around the inner uprights, about 1ft 6in above the deck

plates. IGMT.1972.11.

The photographs below are of the 1902 horizontal brace on the north bank, March 2010.

Coalbrookdale Company engineering drawing of 1902 (below), which shows details of the sleeve

for the diagonal brace on the south quadrant; CBD drawing no 2612, part of Order No 4388.

IGMT.1972.15.


Appendix 5 154

1904

Photograph of 1904 captioned „The Bridge‟

from a bound set by Francis Frith, looking

upstream (Frith No 51376). The horizontal brace

is visible. The tilting of the outer verticals

against the pier (south quadrant of the main arch)

is also visible. The inner vertical on the north

quadrant, frame E, tilts back from the upper

horizontal cross stay – the earliest photographic

evidence of this. There is a bolted-on fish plate

repair to the inner upright of frame E, north

quadrant, near the centre line of the circle.

Buckling of the inner land arch is visible at deck

level. The stonework of the south abutment below the base plates extends well downstream of the

Bridge. The outer ogee bracket on the north quadrant frame D appears to be missing. There are no

railings on the south bank, but new railings along the north towpath. IGMT.1981.145.2.

1921

Photograph of 1921 from the Bridge deck near

the tollgate, looking south. The old gas lamp and

bracket is still on the Tollhouse, which was

replaced later in 1921 by a new one (confirmed in

later correspondence by the then Toll-keeper‟s

wife, Monica Jones in a letter of 16th April 1991

to IGMT Director Stuart Smith). The wooden gate

has been replaced with a new iron one, though the

post at the left end will later be replaced with

something similar to, but even thicker than, the

one at the other end (see 1981.1879 of 1975). The road surface outside the Tollhouse has been

reinforced with brick paviours. There is a pavement at this point, but without a raised kerb.

IGMT.1982.2807.

Footpaths installed, and the possible effects of a recent landslip investigated, 1923

An engineering survey of March 1923 by Basil Mott advised “there was some risk in using the bridge

for vehicular traffic”, and as a result the roadway width was reduced to 14ft by the insertion of two

5ft-wide footpaths. Later photographs confirm that the footpath on the downstream side was laid

around the existing water main, thus partly burying it. The report says there was a gas main within the

road deck alongside the water main. This must have been a second gas main, as the gas lamp on the

upstream balustrade had a supply which was installed soon after December 1839. It also describes the

„I‟ beams inserted into the inner land arch in 1880 as curved, being 1ft 9in at the centre and 1ft 6in at

their ends. Engineering survey by Basil Mott of Mott, Hay & Anderson (M,H&A) of 19 th March

1923. „The Iron Bridge, Shropshire‟, pp12. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Archives,

IGMT.1991.2606.

1923

“It is understood that a large buried revetment wall has been built at the foot of the hill ...” to

resist the slipping of the south abutment (presumably located against the abutment itself, though no

other reference to this has yet been discovered). The accommodation tunnel in the north abutment

“is now used for storage purposes.” The face of this abutment “... is slightly concave, vertically, to

the extent of about 4” at the centre ... there is a vertical crack between the first and the second

[outer] vertical pillars from the East, between the second and centre, and just inside the

Westernmost ... the lower abutment at the south end is some 4” higher than at the North end.”

M,H&A, p3.


Appendix 5 155

There are no footpaths “but there is a gutter on each side ... water and gas mains run through the

roadway on the Eastern side of the Bridge.” M,H&A, p4.

“On both sides the inner vertical pillars have been braced and connected 1 ’6” from the ground by

the wrought (sic) iron straps recommended in the 1902 Report.” M,H&A, p8. [In fact the straps

are steel with cast iron spacer blocks; see 1902 drawing Coalbrookdale Co No 2516: „Steel Straps

& Cast Iron Blocks for staying Bridge over River Severn at Ironbridge‟ IGMT.1971.12].

Of the diagonal brace “On the South side this diagonal brace has fractured ... and has been

repaired by fishing, as recommended in the 1902 Report.” M,H&A, p9. [See 1902 Coalbrookdale

drawing No 2612: „Details of Brace for Diagonal Stay for C.I. Bridge Over River Severn‟,

IGMT.1972.15].

The consultants asserted that the thickness of the road material at the southern end was adding

unnecessary weight, and recommended reducing “the thickness of the roadway to one foot

wherever it is more than that.” They also recommended constructing “... footways 5 feet wide on

either side so as to keep the vehicular traffic to the centre of the roadway.” A margin note in

manuscript referring to both of these says “done”. M,H&A, p11.

A letter of 27th August 1923 to the Bridge Trustees from Stuart Thompson of Peterborough reports

on the absence of any noticeable effects “that could definitely be attributed to the effect of the

landslip”, though he does refer to cracks in the stonework. He also says “there are cracks in the

Gatekeeper‟s Cottage ... of recent origin.” He proposes “a thorough consolidation of the piers by

driving liquid cement grout under pressure into the core of the piers” [Thompson uses „piers‟ to

refer to the abutments as well], and identifies the north abutment as being the most urgent.

Estimates are included at £850 for the north abutment, £500 for the inner pier, £400 for the outer

pier and £800 for the south abutment. Borehole tests drilled horizontally into the south abutment

in November 1999 (the black holes in the wall, left)

confirmed the existence of cement, though there was

no evidence in the papers that the recommendation

was carried out at this time. [Report of Repairs to the

Bridge, Signposts, etc, SRO.6001.3701].

1920s

Photograph on the Bridge of an elephant advertising

Chapman‟s Circus. The southern end of the water

main can be seen disappearing into the pavement (so

after 1923), and from the height of the dogbars it can

be seen that the surface has been raised by the

thickness of the pavement. IGMT.1975.77.

Photographic postcard showing the building on the

end of the Bridge, the walls recently painted white

and with no signwriting. The war memorial is in the

Square facing the Bridge (so after 1923). It was re-

sited on the other side of the road in 1965.

IGMT.1982.2202.


Appendix 5 156

1924

When the recently-formed Newcomen Society visited the Bridge on Thursday 19 th June 1924

“Great anxiety was expressed for the fate of the bridge when it was learnt that it had been

proposed to pull it down and replace it by a modern structure in reinforced concrete.” Newcomen

Society Transactions, Vol IV, p110, 1923-4.

Photograph of September 1924 looking

downstream and south east towards the Bridge

from near the railway line. The additional

horizontal straps of 1902 can be seen just above

the base plates. The building against the upstream

side of the north abutment has been reduced to a

wall. Various brick walls top the south abutment

next to the Tollhouse. The tilting back of the

verticals on the south quadrant of the main arch

by the inner pier is evident. IGMT.1984.6628.

Saddles added to the top of the inner verticals, extra straps added to the horizontal braces on the

lower ribs, two ogee brackets replaced, 1926-7

The Bridge Trustees‟ surveyor, Luther Griffiths had used a scaffold in August and again in October

1926 to make a close inspection of the Bridge, and “at least ninety fractures were noted, excluding

those that had been repaired previously.” Thirty-one of the fractures were to the lugs on the upper

horizontal braces, and eight were in the radials. Though the road deck had been narrowed by the

insertion of footpaths, the increasing weight of motor traffic on the Bridge required the fractured deck

beams to be reinforced with bolted-on cast-iron saddles in 1927. As a precaution they were applied to

both sides of the river even though the damage was limited to the northern end. The same contract

included 12 small clamps and a pair of decorative ogees. [Report of Repairs to the Bridge, Signposts,

etc, SRO.6001.3701].

1926

A collection of reports about repairs includes 4 engineering drawings annotated as A, B, C and D.

Though not marked as such, they were produced by Brymbo Steel Company, associated letters

confirming this (Brymbo Steel Co was part of the Coalbrookdale Company). The work was carried

out over the winter of 1926-7 and completed by mid January. A drawing of 11th August 1926 is

marked „A‟ and titled „Repairs to Ironbridge - New Cross Ties‟, showing the new steel straps to be

added just above each of the upper horizontal straps of the main arch. They were made in two

halves and joined at the centre by a bolt, being installed October 6th to 9th 1926. The drawing

notes that six sets were required. [Report of Repairs to the Bridge, Signposts, etc,

SRO.6001.3701].


Appendix 5 157

Drawing „B‟ (left), also of 11th August 1926, is titled „Repairs to

Diagonal Member‟ and shows a simple pair of plates to be joined

by two 14½” bolts for the upstream diagonal on the south

quadrant (photograph of March 2010 below), and also a detail for

a new bolt at the top of the diagonals of the north quadrant. A

letter of 19th April 1932 says this particular repair had been fixed

on site by Messrs J E Green. [Report of Repairs to the Bridge,

Signposts, etc, SRO.6001.3701].

Drawing „D‟ of 8th November 1926 is titled „Bracket Supports in Cast Iron to Main Girders,

Iron Bridge‟. The instruction is for 10 pairs, with 60 hexagonal bolts to fix them (below right,

photograph of December 1999). Site investigation in January 2000 revealed that each of the

cast iron saddles was individually identified with a letter and number cast onto it - A1 to A5

and R1 to R5 (Ironbridge Institute survey). Griffiths also suggested that “struts of 4” x 4”

oak be fixed between the main girders and resting on the brackets recently put in, to prevent

any movement of the girders sideways.” This was evidently done as timbers of that size can

still be seen at the level of the saddles.


Appendix 5 158

The order also includes a sketch for a clamp to fix the circles to be “put in 12 positions” (circled

below and photograph, right, of December 1999). SRO.6001.3701.

1927

Drawing „C‟ (below) is dated 28th January 1927 but untitled, and shows a light-weight

replacement for two of the ogee brackets to be made in wrought iron. The flat bar has a cross

section of 5” x ¾” instead of the original section of 5” x 2¾” cast iron. This proved to be too thin

and has since buckled (observed 1999). “The brackets, bolts and clamps were made at Brymbo,

and erected January 3rd 1927 to January 15th 1927.” Details of all the above repairs were

described in the „Final Report on condition and of repairs carried out on THE IRON BRIDGE -

SALOP‟ by Luther Griffiths, Brymbo, dated 28th January 1927. Griffiths noted “at least ninety

fractures”, 31 of them within the upper horizontal

braces, and 8 in the radials. As a result, the last

major additions to the main arch were installed

between October 1926 and January 1927, supplied

by the Brymbo Steel Company and Wright‟s Forge of

Tipton. The six sets of horizontal straps and braces

(Drawing A) “were supplied by Wright‟s Forge in

Tipton and were erected October 6th to 9th 1926 by

two men from Brymbo.” [Report of Repairs to the

Bridge, Signposts, etc, SRO.6001.3701].

Luther Griffiths‟ letter of 12th October 1926

confirms that the bolt from the crown joint of frame

C was already missing (arrowed in the 1999

photograph, left, and still missing then). Griffiths

also recorded that the inner verticals were out of

plumb: “... the downstream column „town end‟ is 11” out of plumb; the upstream column 7½”; the

downstream column „station‟ end 6”, and the

upstream column 7”. This suggests there is a thrust

from both sides of the River, and also settlement on

the „town‟ side.” [SRO.6001.3701]. The upstream

columns were measured again in 1948 and 1980, and

showed this tendency was continuing – the town side

in 1948 was 9½” and had increased to 11¾” by

1980; the station side had reduced to 6½” in 1948,

and further still to 5¼” in 1980 [IGMT Archives,

DOE 1980, and IGMT.1981.119].


Appendix 5 159

c1928

Detail of a photograph from Bridge Road looking

north across the Bridge. The date of c1928 is

based on various factors: including the motorbike

parked opposite the Tollhouse; the new lamp on

the Tollhouse (installed 1921); the war memorial

is in the Square (erected 1923); there are

footpaths on both sides of the Bridge (installed in

1923); the tollgate has a new post independent of

the leaning wall of the weighbridge building;

there is a brick coping around the roof; and the

Tontine stable block has a roof repair.

IGMT.1988.2445.

1931

Correspondence of 8th and 16th May 1931 from the Trustees‟ surveyor Luther Griffiths to

Ironbridge solicitors Thorn, Pudsey & Derry reported how the span is measured at approximately

6-month intervals. This file includes 7 measurements dating from April 1927 to March 1934,

which show a shrinking over that time of the upstream span by ½”, and by ¼” to the downstream

span. “... the span is checked with a steel „CHESTERMAN‟ tape, 100 feet long; this is supported

in a straight line by suspenders from a catenary cord above, so that sag is avoided.” [Report of

Repairs to the Bridge, Signposts, etc, SRO.6001.3701].

1932

A letter of 19th April 1932 from the Trustees‟ surveyor Luther Griffiths to Ironbridge solicitors

Thorn, Pudsey & Derry reported that “one of the diagonal members [south quadrant, downstream

half and low down] has broken away from the vertical. It is not a new fracture. A similar fracture

on the town end was repaired with two bolts and a pair of clamp plates by Messrs JE Green in

1926/1927.” The middle of this diagonal brace was subject to a large fishing repair in 1902 (see

IGMT.1972.15). [Report of Repairs to the Bridge, Signposts, etc, SRO.6001.3701].

1933

In the SRO there is a small sketch locating a portion of the retaining wall which has collapsed

upstream of the Bridge on the south bank, and “masonry leaning out over tow path” on the north

abutment where it splays outwards. It is undated, but a note says “see letter of April 22nd 1933”,

which is not included in this bundle. [Report of Repairs to the Bridge, Signposts, etc,

SRO.6001.3701].

Photograph looking downstream from the

southern towpath. The Bridge is floodlit for the

Ironbridge Carnival, carried out by a Mr Lloyd of

Shrewsbury [IGMT Archive file B/2/2]. The brick

housing for these lights is visible on some

photographs (esp c1950) and on a 1:500 Survey

drawing of 1965. IGMT.1985.183.

The Bridge designated an Ancient Monument and closed to vehicular traffic 1934

In 1934 the Bridge was closed to vehicular traffic and designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument,

County No 106, though pedestrian tolls continued until 1950. A replacement bridge was proposed in

1937 to run alongside the original and associated boreholes were drilled, but the War intervened and

apart from the demolition of the buildings on the north bank in 1946 nothing came of this proposal. In

fact it had been proposed as early as 1924 that the Bridge should be demolished and replaced in

reinforced concrete.


Appendix 5 160

1934

Aerofilms photograph 46398, 1934, looking west.

Pedestrians still had to pay the halfpenny toll, so

the tollboard is still in place on the Tollhouse

(gone by 1952, presumably taken down in 1950

when the Bridge was freed from tolls).

IGMT.1991.2294.

1935

Watercolour by Vera Louise Temple, dated 1935,

from the towpath on the south bank looking

downstream. The group of buildings on the end of

the Bridge includes one block of 5 storeys,

occupied by the Chemist at Bridge deck level.

Next to it is a pair of cottages with dormer

windows, and a substantial brick wall with gate

piers. Temple was the Senior English Mistress of

Coalbrookdale High School. IGMT.1976.28.

Repairs to the ogee bottoms carried out, 1937

1937

Photograph of 28th April 1937 from the north

towpath looking upstream. Some work has only

just been completed because scaffold boards are

still on the Bridge (lying on the upper cross stays

on both sides). The repairs of 1927 can be seen:

saddles added to the tops of the inner verticals;

replacement thin ogees on frames E and A on the

north quadrant; and straps on the lower end of the

ogees (visible on frame E) and on various places

on the circles. The original lamp bracket is still

on the upstream railing, but the lamp itself is

missing. IGMT.1980.447.

Various straps have been added near the circles

and at the bottom of the ogees, which most likely

date from this work. (left, frame D, Tontine side,

December 1999)

In late 1937 a scheme was considered for a new

bridge to be built alongside the Iron Bridge on the

upstream side. Buildings in the way were acquired by

compulsory purchase: a Grocer‟s shop with dwelling

and florist, a Chemist with dwelling, a Confectioners

shop with flat over, and cottages. Wellington Journal,

13th November 1937.


Appendix 5 161

By February 1946 the lamp bracket on the upstream parapet had gone; buildings on the north

end of the Bridge were demolished in May 1946

On 18th May 1946 the Wellington Journal reported the start of the demolition of the buildings on the

upstream end of the north abutment. This was to make way for a new bridge, “plans for which had to

be shelved on account of the war.” A plan in the SRO (see below, 1950) shows the new bridge faintly

drawn alongside the original (which would be retained for pedestrian use) starting from the land

occupied by the buildings next to the north abutment and crossing at an angle so the south end meets

the south bank road just south of the Tollhouse. This would require the demolition of the Tollhouse

and of the property below the Tollhouse known as Station House or 67 Bower Yard, the latter

purchased by Shropshire County Council on 10th June 1947, Deed packet RB40 [SRO.4437.10].

1946

Photograph of 10th February 1946 looking

downstream from the Wharfage. The river is in

full flood and is about 9 ft above the base plates

having topped the lower cross stays, this being

the second highest flood on record (the highest

was 12th February 1795). The lamp at the crown

has been cut off above the railing finials.

IGMT.1982.2209.

Photograph of 1946 looking downstream. The

buildings on the end of the Bridge have been

recently demolished and the site is fenced by

chestnut paling. The lamp on the Bridge has

been cut off above the railings. The inner

verticals on the north quadrant can be seen to

lean back from about half way up.

IGMT.1981.76.

1947

Boreholes were taken on the site of the demolished chemist block on the north bank. These relate

to the location of the abutment for a new bridge, for which an undated plan survives (see 1950,

SRO.4437.10). No 1 is within the building block area, 2 and 3 are near the water‟s edge, and

No 4 is on the south bank near the water‟s edge. SRO.4437.9.

Boreholes were taken on the south bank near to and upstream of the Tollhouse, numbered 1A to

4A. 1A is near the southern edge of the cottage that is upstream of the inner land arch; 2A and 3A

are in the Tollhouse garden about level with the north and south ends of the building; 4A is in the

garden of the house that stood immediately to the south of the Tollhouse. Undated plan No 16408,

B/3/1. SRO.4437.10.

A later report by B W Huntsman of the Ministry of Works, Engineering Division, (of 20 th

December 1961) refers to the findings: “trial borings taken in 1947 on the right bank, west of the

bridge approach, about 75ft to 170ft south of the river ... soft clay to about 26ft, and about 9ft of

stiff clay overlying shale at a depth of about 35ft below ground level. The slope of the strata is

about 7° to the horizontal.” As a result, he recommends preparing a scheme to relieve the pressure

of the north abutment and also suggests strutting in the river bed to hold the abutments apart.

SRO.4437.9.


Appendix 5 162

1948

Shropshire County Council begin to take yearly measurements of the span (see „Historic Bridges of

Shropshire‟, 1985 p102 by Anthony „Sam‟ Blackwell). Measurements had also been taken from April

1927 to March 1934 by the Bridge trustees‟ surveyor (see SRO.6001.3701 of 1927).

1949

Aerofilms photograph No A24217 of 1949 of the

Bridge, with the Ironbridge & Broseley station in the

foreground. The bare plot of land is evident where

the Chemist and other buildings were demolished in

May 1946; the lower Tontine stable building has

gone, though a section of sloping end wall can still be

seen. The two masonry arches of the Tontine vaults

cannot be seen (on the upstream side of the Bridge).

IGMT.1993.7888.

Pedestrian tolls removed; ownership passed to Shropshire County Council, 1950

On 12th October 1950 the trustees handed over the Bridge to Shropshire County Council and it

became free to pedestrians.

1950

A manuscript note, not dated, says “In a reply to British Iron & Steel Research Association, 25

Feb 53, GCC writes:- Ironbridge last painted 1950. 3 coats of bituminous paint, each of a different

shade finish with black.” ... plus a footnote: “Other correspondence from Davey refers to Red

Lead, supplied by ICI; Undercoat Melanoid Heavy Brown; Final Melanoid No 1 Black.”

SRO.4437.9. It is assumed this work was done by the County Council because Michael Darby, son

of Roger Sorton Darby, said the Trustees could not afford to have it repainted (pers com, 11 th May

2002).

Undated conveyance of the Bridge to Shropshire County Council, listing the 37 Bridge

Proprietors who are party to the agreement, starting with Henry Basil Darby and Mark Philip

Rathbone (descendants of Abraham Darby III and Joseph Rathbone who were among the original

trustees). The 1950 list also included Roger Sorton Darby. The conveyance is accompanied by a

plan dated 29th October 1975. SRO.4437.9.

Undated plan 1:500 for a “New Bridge at Ironbridge”,

but including the Bridge and Tollhouse in blue, with a

note that “land coloured blue is already owned by the

County Council.” The Bridge had been handed over to

SCC by the Trustees on 12th October 1950 and under

this proposal was to be retained as a pedestrian route,

but the new bridge would require the demolition of the

Tollhouse. On the north bank the new bridge would start

75ft upstream of the Iron Bridge, while on the south

bank both bridges would meet at a point about 30ft

south of the Tollhouse. Borehole locations numbered 1-

4 and 1A to 4A are identified on another copy of the

same plan, No 16408 B/3/1. SRO.4437.10.


Appendix 5 163

1952

Photograph dated 1952 from the footbridge

across the railway, looking north. A notice on the

tollgate says „traffic diversion ahead‟, and a sign

on the weighbridge building says something about

it being closed, presumably closed to all vehicles.

The footpath over the Bridge has a concrete kerb;

the lamp is still on the Tollhouse; there is a scar

on the brickwork where the tollboard was once

fixed. A section of original railing (dating from

1803 when the timber side arches were there)

runs up to and in front of the window of the

Tollhouse (see below IGMT.1981.1880 of

c1964). This will be altered in 1974 when the

window becomes a door and the railings are

realigned IGMT.1982.357 (see IGMT.1981.1879

of 1975).

Photograph dated 1952 from near the station,

looking north. The Tontine stable block site has

become overgrown; one of its original walls with

sloping roof line can still be seen (already seen in

the 1949 aerial photo above). The stone parapet

in front of the Tontine has horizontal coursing;

this will be altered in 1972. Plants are growing

out of the masonry at bridge deck level.

IGMT.1982.358.

Photograph of c1952 looking north from the path

leading down to Bower Yard. The site of the

chemist block has become overgrown and bushes

are growing out of the upstream parapet on the

north abutment, but a section of the Tontine vaults

arch can be seen abutting the Bridge. This will be

rebuilt in 1976. IGMT.1982.359.

1961

A report by B W Huntsman of the Ministry of Works, Engineering Division, (of 20 th December

1961) refers to the findings of “trial borings taken in 1947 on the right bank, west of the bridge

approach, about 75ft to 170ft south of the river”. SRO.4437.9.

1962

A measured drawing (undated but filed between other items dated 26 th April and 21st May 1962)

is annotated “at midspan deck is 5¾” lower at the upstream side / at the two quarter spans the deck

is almost balanced from parapet to parapet”. SRO.4437.9.

A river depth survey was done (exact date unspecified) to determine the cross section of the river

bed under the Bridge. A drawing shows the profile of this and a later 1970 survey. SRO.4437.10.


Appendix 5 164

c1964

Photograph of the Tollhouse c1964. The gate width has been limited by the insertion of a central

post, probably done in 1950. The windows and door above Bridge deck level are bricked up

(though the flat below this level was occupied in

1964). The central chimney is still in place, but the

ridge tiles have shifted; the uneven roof tiles show

that the rafters are in bad condition. The railings

extend beyond the edge of the building and

terminate just past the right hand window. This

window will become a door when the building is

restored in 1974 (compare IGMT.1981.1879 of

1974). The scar between the upper windows where

the tollboard once hung is visible (it was probably

removed in 1950 when tolls were withdrawn). The

gas lamp has gone. IGMT.1981.1880.

1965

Detail of an Aerofilms photograph of 6th April 1965. The house just south of the Tollhouse has

gone. The middle chimney of the Tollhouse can still be seen. Floodlight housings can be seen on

both upstream banks. The railway station buildings

and the level crossing gates are still there, but the

rails have been taken up and the footbridge

removed as the first stage of demolition (the line

closed in 1963). Though rapidly falling into ruin,

the station buildings were still standing in 1966

(1966/45 National Railway Museum, Selwyn

Pearce Higgins photo). The remnant of the Tontine

stable wall has gone; little evidence of the cellar

wall on the upstream side apart from the first few

feet right against the Bridge. National Monuments

Record, Swindon. English Partnerships.

NMR.MAL/65024.193.

c1965

Photograph from just over the crown of the Bridge looking north. The obelisk can still be seen in

the Square and but was re-sited by November 1965. The water main can be seen partially buried

into the downstream footpath. The kerbs are of

concrete. There is a brick wall at the far end of the

Bridge where the chemist used to be, with framed

timetables on it as this is a bus stop (see

IGMT.1981.161 of 1972). The Bridge is closed to

vehicles by 13 wooden posts, 12 of which can be

seen in this photograph (see 1965 Survey, Sheet

0711 below). They were probably first installed in

1950. IGMT.1999.1114.

War memorial re-sited (between April and November) 1965

1:500 Survey, Sheet 0711. Survey plans from aerial photography made for Dawley Development

Corporation, shot in November 1965. The housings for floodlights are shown on both banks

upstream of the Bridge. 13 posts are shown on the north abutment to stop traffic crossing the

Bridge. The war memorial has been re-sited on the opposite side of the road and the obelisk

drinking fountain has been moved (to Waterloo Street); the low wall in front of the Square has

been moved back to line up with the end of the Tontine. The survey shows the retaining wall by

the downstream pilaster of the north abutment, which related to the land in front of the Tontine


Appendix 5 165

stable. The short section of wall relating to the Tontine vaults is also shown on the survey.

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Archives.

1966

Adams, Haddon C. 1966, for Sandford Fawcett, Wilton & Bell, 1966 (Adams, SF,W&B). „Report

on the Condition of the Bridge and Proposed Remedial Works‟. June 1966, pp19.

IGMT.1989.4662. Adams‟ report concludes that the locked up tensions in the ironwork could give

way to cause sudden release and collapse, a view refuted by later analysis, especially in SF,W&B

1969 (below).

Adams, SF,W&B, para 14 – The fracture to the bed plate on the south abutment may have been

caused by “the impact of a vessel or by massive flotsam in time of flood.” In fact this fracture

probably dates back to before 1801, when fractures were noted on both sides and attributed at the

time to movements in the abutments.

Adams, SF,W&B, para 18 – Arthur Raistrick (author of „Dynasty of Ironfounders‟, a history of the

Coalbrookdale Company, published 1953) had suggested to the consultant that the abutment tilt

on the south side of the main arch was there before the ironwork was erected. Adams notes,

however, that “it would have been physically impossible for the chases to have been cut so neatly

for the housing of the verticals subsequent to erection.” Neither Raistrick nor Adams was aware of

the sketch by Paul Sandby Munn of 11th July 1802 (Victoria & Albert Museum, E3112/1948),

which shows that the entire south abutment adjacent to the ironwork had been removed. It was

replaced by the two side arches and their piers, the inner one being cut to fit the ironwork. The

thesis remains that Raistrick was right and that the ironwork was erected at an angle on this side,

with the original riverside abutment wall sloping to match it.

Adams, SF,W&B, para 31 – The consultant concludes that the fractures in the ironwork were

caused “by movement of the masonry initiated by earth movement.” IGMT.1989.4662.

1967

Notes of a meeting of 7th November 1967 agree the location of new boreholes, one of which would

require cutting “through the Cast Iron deck plate”. In fact two such holes were cut, one above each

base plate, because the drilling equipment was too bulky to be erected down on the base plates.

For the results of the boreholes, see 1968 entry below. SRO.4437.9.

1968

Boreholes were made by the Cementation Company for Shropshire County Council in January

1968. Borehole A was made on 12th January from the back of the north abutment starting from

road level; borehole B was made on 18th January from deck level, through the frames and then

through the base plate of the north abutment 40ft below (which accounts for the circular hole in

the deck plate); borehole C was made on 23rd January from deck level down through the south

abutment. The results from B and C showed “that the abutments consist mainly of sandstone

boulders with concrete infilling. The proportions of rock and concrete vary, but the cores indicate

that the sandstone boulders are the major constituent.” SRO.4437.9.

Blackwell, Anthony. 1968. „The Iron Bridge - Note on the deformation of the structure‟. pp2 plus

1p of diagrams (internal SCC manuscript). 30th January 1968. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust.

Blackwell‟s manuscript report confirmed that boreholes had been drilled, and, in the light of

Adams‟ view that the ironwork could suddenly give way, he takes a closer look at the

deformation. This is the most realistic interpretation of the problem, reached by the engineer in the

light of many years observation of the Bridge. The diagram was included in SF,W&B‟s 1969

report (see below), duly acknowledged.„Sam‟ Blackwell wrongly states that there are no fractures

at all on the south quadrant (despite the 1902 repairs to the diagonal brace and the fractured base

plate), but identifies the reason for the fractures being concentrated in the north quadrant being

due to “local pressure about half-way up the masonry abutment.” This explains the tilting and

fracture of the inner verticals about half way up, plus a fracture on the inner rib close to the

junction of radial Rb. These have released the locked-up stresses. He concludes that the most


Appendix 5 166

effective treatment would be to relieve any further pressures at this point by lightening the north

abutment. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Archives. IGMT.2203.

A File note of 7th May 1968 record that there were two gas mains in the downstream footpath, the

one nearest the parapet being defunct. The water main was distorted and was pushing out two

coping stones on the north east wing wall. SRO.4437.9.

Memo of 23rd September 1968 reported that approximately 6 ft of parapet on the north west side

of the abutment (upstream on the Tontine side) had been damaged by a Morris car. An attached

drawing dated 22nd September 1968 shows this to be on the curved wall immediately north of the

iron parapet. SRO.4437.9.

1969

Sandford Fawcett, Wilton & Bell, 1969 (SF,W&B). „Report on the Iron Bridge at

Coalbrookdale‟. J A Williams, October 1969. pp41 and 9 diagrams. IGMT.1989.4670.

Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 conclude that the main ironwork “has every appearance of fulfilling its

present function satisfactorily” and that the physical condition of the abutments “does not give rise

to any immediate alarm”. It incorrectly states (2.3.4) that both the side arches had been reinforced

by girders, whereas in fact only the inner arch had been treated in this way. However, he notes the

effect of the “inward squeezing of the abutments” and the report recommends lightening the north

abutment and anchoring each of the abutments to the underlying rock by stressed cables. The

alternative solution of using a reinforced concrete underwater strut is explored but dismissed as

being less effective and more expensive than the cables. In the event, the lightening of the north

abutment and the construction of the underwater strut went ahead in 1972-4 (see below).

The report quotes from the above 1968 memorandum by Sam Blackwell (p13), which states that

“there can be no doubt that the crown has lifted. ... The vertical abutment frame members [on the

south quadrant] are out of plumb, having moved forwards at the bottom, while the base plate they

stand on is tilting backwards.” All the fractures in the north quadrant are “related to local pressure

about half-way up the [north] masonry abutment.” Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Archives.

IGMT.1989.4670.

Photograph of 1969 from near the crown of the

Bridge looking south. The Tollhouse windows are

bricked up. The tollgate has been reinforced at its

centre, and two uprights are missing at the

Tollhouse end. A post restricts the pedestrian

gate. Alongside the water main on the left hand

footpath is a new gas pipe and evidence of the

tarmac being dug up prior to its burial; an earlier

gas pipe had been buried in the new footpaths of

1923. The gutter is laid with stone sets. The

curving of the inner land arch is evident from the

railings. IGMT.1982.1435.

1970

A trial cleaning and repainting was done within the area reachable directly above the base plates

of the main arch. The process involved removing rust and applying a phosphoric acid, followed by

an acid remover, a metallic lead primer, a black micaceous finish (Ferrodor) and finally a

bituminous finish (Melanoid Bit Black No 1). SRO.4437.10.

Reg Morton (Honorary Curator, IGMT) and Alf Moseley publish „An Examination of Fractures in

the First Iron Bridge at Coalbrookdale‟, a paper illustrated with 20 figures, in the Journal of West

Midlands Studies, 1970, No 2, Wolverhampton Polytechnic. “There are at least 53 observable

fractures in the ironwork of the bridge and, of this number, 42 are concentrated in the members on

the Ironbridge side.” Fractures were observed using a telephoto lens and included ones in the

abutments and piers as well as the ironwork, the latter amounting to 23 on the radials, 4 on the


Appendix 5 167

inner ribs, 4 on the verticals, 9 on the horizontal braces, 1 on the diagonal cross brace, and 1 near

the crown on frame A (though this last one is in fact a misreading of the joint rather than a

fracture). The fractures on the masonry included a crack on the inner pier (between the two land

arches) just below the string course on the downstream face, and a vertical crack in the masonry on

the north abutment between frames D and E below the upper horizontal stay. The broken dovetail

of the bed plate to frame D on the south abutment was also noted. All the fractures on the Benthall

side were in the upper horizontal braces (7), or on the diagonal braces (3). One illustration (fig 9)

confirms that the fish plates added to the inner vertical of frame A at the junction of the outer rib,

north quadrant, was there by this time. IGMT Library.

1971

Based largely on their report of 1969, Consultant Engineers Sandford Fawcett, Wilton & Bell are

commissioned to prepare details of major works to stabilise the Bridge, which will involve

excavating the fill out of the north abutment to relieve the pressures and inserting an underwater

strut between the abutments to hold them apart. (The idea of a strut was first suggested in 1801).

The cost is estimated at £150,000. IGMT spearhead a fundraising campaign for the work and raise

£50,000 in the first year, rising to a total of £65,000 by the following year. The Department of the

Environment agree to match this and Shropshire County Council agree to fund up to £20,000, a

figure equivalent to what it would have cost the Council to demolish the Bridge. IGMT Archive

File IB (R). IGMT Library & Archives. IGMT Archive Files „Iron Bridge (Reconstruction)‟ and

„Ironbridge 72-89‟ [hereafter IB (R), and IB 72-89] IGMT Library & Archive.

15/1/71, IB(R) - Letter from WRN Jones (Clerk to SCC) to E Bruce Ball, confirming “the method

to be employed to stabilise the abutments of the Ironbridge.” It stated that SCC and DOE would

fund the initial £7,500 “to commission the design drawing work from the Consulting Engineers”

SF,W&B.

15/3/71, IB(R) - Letter from Julian Amery at DOE to Viscount Bridgeman (the first President of

IGMT), which sets out the proposed restoration work in outline and the associated costs, and offers

help in directing fund raising appeals.

29/3/71, IB(R) - Minutes of a meeting at Shropshire County Council, stating that Stage 1 has

already started and SCC‟s „gang‟ will start on 17 th April, though in fact work did not start until

1972 - see below, 10/12/71 IB(R). The cost was estimated at £27,000, to be split 3 ways between

DOE, SCC and IGMT; that Stage 2 (the underwater strut) would be carried out in 1973; that DOE

“might consider taking over the guardianship of the bridge upon completion of Stage 1, ie on or

before 1st April 1973.”

26/5/71, IB(R) - Letter from Emyr Thomas to Bruce Ball which sets out the restoration costs at

£150,000, with the Museum‟s fundraising target of £50,000 a year in 1972 and 73.

16/11/71 - Handwritten note by John Smith (banker and founder of the Manifold Trust and of the

Landmark Trust) to Bruce Ball offering a donation of £50,000 towards the restoration, subject to

certain conditions, including his anonymity. This is confirmed and used by IGMT to persuade

DOE and SCC to contribute £50,000 and £20,000 respectively.

17/11/71 - DOE agree to assign £50,000.

10/12/71 - Letter from Bruce Ball to John Smith confirming work will start 1st April 1972 on

lightening the north abutment (Stage 1), and the underwater strutting (Stage 2) will start on 1 st

April 1973. A 3rd Stage would be repair and repainting. Costs were estimated at £20,000 for Stage

1, £90,000 for Stage 2 and £20,000 for Stage 3; plus fees for design and supervision at £15,000.

Total £145,000.

8/12/71 - At a meeting it is reported (without naming her) that Lady Labouchère, 8 th generation

direct descendant of Abraham Darby I, covenants £3,200 towards the project, which was Abraham

Darby III‟s original estimated cost of the Bridge. At this meeting, Sam Blackwell (Bridge


Appendix 5 168

Engineer for SCC) said measurements of the span had been taken since 1948 “at the same time

each year, in as near still conditions as could be achieved.” IGMT Archives.

Laying new services within the footpaths; lightening the north abutment, 1972

In April 1972 Shropshire County Council began Stage 1 of the repair programme, burying water, gas

electricity and telephone services within the footpaths, and excavating the fill out of the north

abutment to reduce the pressures on the ironwork. In September the DOE commission Plowman

Craven of Harpenden to take photogrammetry images and a drawing of the upstream elevation is

generated from them. No other drawings are known to have been generated from this survey.

1972

Sandford Fawcett, Wilton & Bell (SF,W&B), 1972. „The Iron Bridge - Estimate of Cost of

Remedial Works to North Abutment‟. February 1972, pp10. Part of Archive File IB (R).


IGMT Archive Files „IB (R)‟ and „IB 72-89‟. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Library &

Archive.

IB(R). 17/1/72 – Department of Employment say the trade unions object to the Royal Engineers

doing Stage 1.

February 1972 – SF,W&B provide detailed estimate of costs for Stage 1 (the relief of the north

abutment), which they put at £14,579.

26/2/72 – SCC confirm a contribution of £20,000.

29/2/72 – Handwritten note by E Bruce Ball that John Smith came through Ironbridge and saw

that No 34 High Street was for sale and that it might be suitable for a Landmark Trust property.

9/3/72 – A letter from Ball to Smith states that all the utility companies agreed to do their work

for nothing, as a contribution to the project (gas, water, electricity and telephone lines were all

laid either in or on the footpaths at this stage), and that the Water Board had already started

moving their 7 inch water main and were substituting it for two 4 inch mains (though the

dimensions are described as 6 inch mains in report for week ending 22/4/72).

Photograph c1972, before April, from near the crown of the Bridge looking north. The Bridge is

closed to vehicles by 8 wooden posts, where previously there had been 13 (see 1965 Survey, Sheet

0711). This may be at the start of the repair programme. IGMT.1999.1113.

IB 72-89. Shropshire County Council‟s Direct Labour organisation undertake the work in 1972

under the direction of G F Weaver, to the design by consultants SF,W&B [note by J M Earle of

SF,W&B in IB 72-89 September 1974].

w/e 22/4/72, - SCC progress report: “contractors for East Shropshire Water Board have full

occupation of the site for the week laying the first alternative 6 inch water main over the bridge,

under the upstream footpath.” The dimension does not agree with Bruce Ball‟s letter of 9/3/72, but

is more likely to be correct.

Photograph taken from an upper window of the

Tontine hotel looking south across the Bridge. A

temporary electricity cable has been strung across the

river on poles; the upper windows of the Tollhouse are

still bricked up. There is a brick wall abutting the

upstream parapet where the Chemist stood until 1946;

the downstream stone parapet has been partially

dismantled since 1965. IGMT.1981.161.


Appendix 5 169

Photograph from the north abutment looking south

at the pipelaying for a new water main, week

ending 22nd April 1972 (IGMT Archive File IB

72-89). Many of the dogbars are missing or broken

off. IGMT.1981.160.

Photograph from near the crown along the

upstream pavement looking north at the pipe-

laying for a new water main, week ending 22nd

April 1972 (IGMT Archive File IB 72-89). The

inner faces of the deck fascias have been

revealed and show they are fixed by a single bolt

to the main railing uprights. Many of the dogbars

are missing or broken off. IGMT.1981.159.

Photograph of the crown on the upstream

pavement looking west, week ending 22nd April

1972. There are plain replacement bars on the

upper and lower right corners of the central

casting where the original scrolls have broken off

(these will be restored to their original

configuration in 1979). Evidence of an earlier

horizontal strap can be seen just below the top

rail, which was reinforcement for the lamp, and

holes in the central upright remain from the

fixings for this lamp. The strap can be seen in

IGMT.1981.22.2 of c1897. IGMT.1981.150.


Appendix 5 170

Photograph along the upstream pavement looking

north at the pipelaying for a new water main, week

ending 22nd April 1972 (IGMT Archive File IB 72-

89). The buckling of the inner land arch is evident

from the upper rail of the parapet.

The deck fascia plates are fixed by bolts to the main

railing uprights, but there are more bolts than on the

main Bridge fascias (see above IGMT.1981.159 of

1972). The kerbs are concrete and there is a cobbled

gutter. The sloping of the deck down towards the west

is evident at the crown when measured against the

windows of the Tontine. IGMT.1981.157.

The Tollhouse was opened as an information point.

IB 72-89. w/e 28/4/72 - Alternative water main undergone pressure tests; SCC “preparing invert

of old brick arch to receive reinforced concrete base and drilling masonry abutments of this arch to

receive „Stafix‟ [stainless steel rods, seen here, below left] bars to connect with external concrete.

Two composite deck beams cast at Longden Road Depot; formwork set up for two further beams.”

Photo, below right, by GF Weaver, April 1972.

w/e 6/5/72 - SCC: water diverted to alternative main; old main to be removed; drilling in arch

complete; high voltage cable uncovered for re-routing; casting of deck beams completed.

IB 72-89. Shropshire County Council‟s report for

week ending 13th May 1972 stated that repairs to the

brickwork of the accommodation arch were complete

and that the old water main had been uncovered ready

for removal. The north abutment was being excavated

and work on the main beam seatings proceeding. There

will be four precast concrete beams to carry the road

deck over the emptied abutment. “Excavation for the

settings of the deck beams in the back of the top of the

main abutment show that the latter and the main wing

walls are not constructed of dressed ashlar masonry, as believed, but of ashlar masonry dressed on

the outside face only and backed with random rubble, set in mortar.”


Appendix 5 171

A drainage hole visible on the east elevation of the ashlar is close to the bottom of the concrete

box and prevents it from filling with water. However, it is still well above base plate level. Mr

Weaver reported that a square exploratory hole was dug horizontally to the north of the

accommodation arch (below) in the direction of the Tontine. There is no record of how far it went.

Photographs of 5th and 6th May 1972, GF Weaver.

IB 72-89. w/e 20/5/72 - Old gas and water mains removed and GPO duct uncovered and

removed. SCC: “The rubble backing to the main abutment was carefully exposed and cleaned and

enclosed in concrete as a base for the beam seating.”

w/e 27/5/72 - SCC: transverse beam to be cast

continuously over entire width and so to extend

under the water mains. (left, at SCC‟s Longden Road

Depot. Weaver).

w/e 2/6/72 - SCC: beam completed; excavation

down the back of the south side of the arch

completed to within 3ft of final depth.

w/e 9/6/72 - SCC: excavations down back of south

abutment of brick arch completed showing the extent

of the cracks discovered in the arch.

w/e 16/6/72 - IB 72-89 - SCC: concreting sealed the

large cracks in the brick arch.

w/e 24/6/72 - SCC: Stafix bars set into extrados of brick arch; concrete placed to level of crown of

arch; reinforcement fixed for top slab and north beam setting.

w/e 1/7/72 - SCC: concreting over downstream half of arch completed; full excavation from

between brick arch and main abutment. (The „corset‟ over the accommodation arch has a flat top.

Weaver, pers com, 12th July 2001).


Appendix 5 172

w/e 8/7/72 - SCC: four composite beams

delivered to site; two set in position (above

right, Weaver).

(above left) Section of the top of the north

abutment by Blackwell, c1974.

IGMT.2007.1229.

w/e 15/7/72 - SCC: further excavation at rear

of main abutment; inside of downstream wall

shaped for concrete lining, and lining

completed; deck slab of service duct cast

(right, Weaver).

Photograph of 14th July 1972 when Prince Philip

visited the Bridge to see the restoration work in

progress of lightening the north abutment. The

Prince is being introduced to

R J Mare, County Surveyor for Shropshire County

Council. Others in the picture include G R

Fletcher, Chairman of the County Roads and

Bridges Committee (far left), and D F Evans from

DOE (far right). IGMT.1993.697.

Photograph of 14th July 1972 when Prince Philip visited the Bridge. The line-up being introduced

to the Prince are, from left to right, Anthony „Sam‟ Blackwell (Roads and Bridges Engineer,

SCC), J A Williams (consultant engineer from SF,W&B), Miss Gladys Newton (from the DOE,

whose name appears on most of the correspondence from the goverment department to the County

Council and the Museum Trust during the works), D F Evans (DOE), R J Mare (County Surveyor,

SCC), Prince Philip, and G R Fletcher (Chairman of the County Roads and Bridges Committee,

SCC). IGMT.1993.704.

IB 72-89. w/e 22/7/72 - SCC: service duct completed.

w/e 28/7/72 - Water Board laying main in downstream service duct.

w/e 4/8/72 - Upstream water main removed.

w/e 11/8/72 - SCC: excavation completed for upstream south quarter of arch corset.

w/e 18/8/72 - SCC: excavation completed for upstream north quarter of arch corset; some

difficulty with large slabs of sandstone; unexpected live electrical cable encountered and dealt

with.


Appendix 5 173

w/e 25/8/72 - SCC: concrete poured for arch corset.

w/e 1/9/72 - SCC: excavation continuing between wing walls, but not at rear of abutment due to

poor quality of rubble backing at lower levels.

w/e 9/9/72 - SCC: lining to spandrel wall on the west side constructed; concreted first section of

abutment wall.

w/e 16/9/72 - SCC: concrete lining to back of main abutment completed.

w/e 23/9/72 - SCC: encountered stone pitched bed at deeper end of the main abutment (probably

left from when the deck plates were positioned before the abutment was built).

w/e 30/9/72 - SCC: all reinforced concrete lining to main abutment and wing walls completed;

remaining two deck beams placed; internal access ladder fixed in place.

Image No 13 of the DOE‟s photogrammetry

survey by Plowman Craven, taken in September

1972, looking at the north abutment from the

upstream accommodation arch path. The debris

can be seen from the demolition of the buildings

on the end of the Bridge. A small section of the

first arch of the Tontine vaults is all that remains,

though these will be rebuilt in 1976. It is believed

that the stonework was recovered from the rubble.

English Heritage Photogrammetric Unit, York.

DOE 1972. The photographs (below left) are of

the same location by GF Weaver in 1973, and (right) in March 2010 by D de Haan.

IB (R). 4/10/72 - letter from John Smith to Bruce Ball confirming the Landmark Trust have

purchased the building by the Iron Bridge (north bank, downstream). The ground floor will be let

to IGMT to become the Shop in The Square, which opened 3/4/73.

IB 72-89. w/e 7/10/72, - SCC: remaining section of deck slab cast.

w/e 14/10/72 - SCC: asphalt waterproofing to deck completed; stone kerbs laid for upstream

footpath.

Manuscript text by Sam Blackwell dated 1st May 1973 referring to the fractures of the radials and

to metallurgical tests on the balustrade brace (cantilever strut). “No member has failed for any

reason other than earth movement ... During living memory only two other pieces of metal, both

sides or cheek pieces from mortices, forced off by the swelling of corrosion under them. Both were

used as metallurgical test pieces, one by Aston University and the other by Mr H C Adams.” Of

the 1972 work he states “The brick arch was uncovered and enclosed in a reinforced concrete

„corset‟ backing down to footing level on both sides...and the rubble backing to the masonry

facing contained in reinforced concrete [ie a concrete skin to the inner wall of the north

abutment].


Appendix 5 174

A 6” water main within each footpath, plus an old 3” gas main in the downstream footpath were

cut off and later restored. An 11kV electricity cable ran down past the wing wall in a metal duct –

which was moved into the new service duct on the d/s footpath, coming out low down in the wing

wall and so doing away with the metal duct.” SRO.4437/10.

Photograph looking upstream from the south east.

The retaining wall against the pilaster on the

north abutment is still there, but landscaping of

the bank has taken place which has re-opened a

route through the accommodation arch. A build

up of silt against the north abutment is visible due

to the low river level. The stone parapet in front

of the Tontine has been lowered down to the

original parallel coursing. IGMT.1981.72.

South half of the concrete strut below the water line cast, 1973

1973

Under Phase II of the restoration programme, a reinforced concrete strut was cast below water level,

beginning with the south half. The work was done from within two coffer dams, which were cut off at

their base once the work was completed. The scheme was designed by consultants Sandford, Fawcett,

Wilton & Bell and executed by Tarmac Construction Ltd.

IB (R). 25/1/73 - Tarmac submit the lowest valid tender for Stage 2 at £104,000. A lower one by

Peter Lind for £97,000 was conditional that a penalty clause was not applied, and on 30/1/73 they

withdrew their tender. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Archives.

Tarmac Construction Ltd contractor‟s

photograph of 22nd June 1973 (left), looking

downstream from mid river. It shows excavation

work in progress in the smaller of two coffer

dams (the in the middle of the river), which had

been constructed to allow a reinforced concrete

beam to be cast below water level. The

reinforced concrete of this middle section was

tied down to bed rock by stressed anchor rods.

IGMT.1987.598.

IB 72-89. Resident engineer for SF,W&B for

Stage 2 was A R Kemp [J M Earle for

SF,W&B, in IB 72-89, September 1974].


IB (R). 12/2/73 - Funding raised by IGMT:

£50,000 from John Smith, £5,000 from the

Pilgrim Trust, £5,000 from Lady Labouchère

(direct descendant from Abraham Darby III who

built the Bridge; actually her £5,000 was a tax-

effective covenant for £3,200, being the

original estimate for the cost of the Bridge in

1777), and up to a maximum of £50,000 from

DOE, and £20,000 from SCC.


Appendix 5 175

6/8/73 - Letter from Bruce Ball to John Smith “last

week we had the most serious floods which the

Severn has experienced for ten years. The coffer dam

was flooded and most of the temporary works were

washed away.” The flood was from 6th to 12th August

1973.

27/8/73 - Report in the Shropshire Star that the cause

of the bank being washed away was “due to fierce

currents being diverted by the coffer dam into the

wall”. The wall in question was just downstream of the north abutment and can be seen in

photograph IGMT.1987.595 (bottom left).

5/10/73 - Memo by Bruce Ball of a phone conversation with Sam Blackwall who confirmed that

some of the cost of the repair to the wall will be covered by insurance, and the rest will come from

the Bridge project. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Archives.

1:500 Survey Sheet 0710. Telford Development Corporation, from aerial photography in April

1973. The contractor‟s huts for the Bridge work were located on the site of the railway station, the

buildings having been demolished. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Library & Archive.

Tarmac Construction Ltd contractor‟s photograph

of 7th August 1973, looking downstream from the

Wharfage. Flooding from 6th to 12th August

inundated the coffer dam; temporary gantries

erected up- and downstream of the coffer dam are

under water and debris is building up. The

Tollhouse windows are bricked up; a brick wall

stands on the edge of the south abutment.

IGMT.1987.592.


of 13th August 1973, looking north from the south

towpath at damage caused by the floods. The

coffer dam in the south half of the river can be

seen; the decking of the access gantry was partly

washed away by the flood water. The river was

forced through the narrowed gap and washed

away much of the far bank. IGMT.1987.595.


of 31st August 1973, looking downstream from

the temporary gantry. The picture shows the larger

compartment of the south coffer dam. The poor

condition of the south abutment can be seen.

Everything from the 4th masonry course

downwards was later covered by the rising side of

the reinforced concrete invert slab.

IGMT.1987.596.


Appendix 5 176

Tarmac Construction Ltd contractor‟s

photograph of 26th September 1973, showing

concrete being pumped into the coffer dam to

cast the invert slab. The last stage of pile driving

is taking place in the smaller compartment.

Temporary roads have been made to access the

gantries, which ended in concrete pads (the

downstream one was still there in February 2000,

but has since been trimmed back level with the

bank). The Tollhouse upper windows are still

bricked up. IGMT.1987.597.

Letter of 22nd September 1973 from County Surveyor SCC to Mrs Gladys Newton, DOE, listing

Phase 1 work still to be done, which included “Fit manhole cover and access ladder ... Bore 3” diameter holes through masonry for drainage pipes and re-route H.V. cable ... Complete

waterproofing roadway and footway surface over deck and reinstatement of service trenches.”

SRO.4437/10. In the larger excavation of the hollowed-out north abutment a ladder was fixed

against the river wall, probably towards the downstream side, though the manhole cover at the top

of this ladder installed by Mr Weaver in 1973 has yet to be located. Site checks in January 2000

were unsuccessful. He thought it was about 3 or 4ft in from the downstream side (Weaver, pers

com, 12th July 2001).

25/10/73 - Letter from Neil Cossons “a number of

sections of railing were found in the bed of the

river.” These are the ones that fell off in 1902,

reported in the Wellington Journal of 24th August

1902. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Archives.

IB 72-89. A broken-off deck end was also

recovered and is now in the Museum of Iron (left).

A sample was cut off from a corner for

metallurgical analysis in May 1998, undertaken

for IGMT by Monitor of Stonehouse,

Gloucestershire.

19/11/73 - Letter from SF,W&B to R J Mare, County Surveyor about the sheet piling for the

coffer dams: “Adjacent to the South Abutment ... driving was very hard for the final few feet, even

to gain the minimum penetration practicable for watertight conditions, while at midstream the

driving became soft and necessitated the lengthening of the piles for stability reasons; also the bed

was lower at midstream than anticipated.” Stage 1 of the contract had cost £13,524 (estimate

£20,000), Stage 2a £103,992 (estimated at £104,000 for the whole contract), plus £12,000 fees -

total £129,516. The estimate for the remaining half of the underwater strut was £12,000. IGMT,

Archives. IB (R).


of 29th October 1973, showing formwork and

shuttering for the concrete to be poured against

the south abutment wall. It also wraps round the

wing walls. The top course of the masonry on the

downstream end has a curved profile.

IGMT.1987.594.


Appendix 5 177


of 1st November 1973 (left), showing the

completed concrete facing wall against the south

abutment before the removal of the coffer dam.

IGMT.1987.593.

„Ground Engineering Aspects of the Preservation

of the Iron Bridge‟, a typewritten report dated 4 th

August 1973 and signed as „Bridge Engineer‟

(Anthony Blackwell). It argues that the

diminishing span is due to “earth movement” and

that “the means of countering it must be the basis of any preservation scheme.” He says there is

overwhelming support for local movement rather than the entire hillside being on the move.

SRO.4437/10.

North half of the concrete strut cast below the water line; Tollhouse restored, 1974

1974

Works recommence in April when Tarmac Construction Ltd cast the reinforced concrete strut below

water level across the remaining (north) half of the river. Ownership of the Tollhouse is transferred to

the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust who restore it during the year. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust,

Library & Archive.

An undated drawing showing how the lower courses of the north abutment are out of alignment, a

feature normally only visible at low summer river levels as in the photograph below of c1900, but

this time observed and recorded from within the coffer dam. This file also includes drawings by

SF,W&B of 20th November 1973 giving details of the misaligned abutment, ranging from 9in at

frame A to 18in at frame E. The level is recorded as 10.6 ft below the base plates, based on

soundings taken on 15th November 1973.

SRO.4437/9. Later, in a letter of 22nd March

1974 (IGMT.2007.1229) SF,W&B state that the

8th course projects 3in at the upstream end and by

the downstream end it is 2ft 3in out. These

revised measurements were taken from within the

coffer dam, while the earlier one had been done by

a diver. SRO. This actually meant redesigning the

steel reinforcement for the concrete, for which

drawings survive in IGMT archive.

Resident engineer for SF,W&B was L M Gardiner. “... the function of the slab being to strut the

abutments apart and prevent further movement, while the monolithic walls resisting any tendency

for the abutments to tilt forward above their bases.” [J M Earle for SF,W&B, in IB 72-89,

September 1974]. IB 72-89.

15/7/74 - Letter from Richard Sawtell, County Secretary SCC, to Percy Bullock, Hon Treasurer of

IGMT, that SCC were bearing the cost of repairing the damage to the river wall adjoining the

north abutment (caused during the flood of August 2003 and exacerbated by the narrowing of the

river by the coffer dam) “which is likely to be at least £5,000.” IB (R).

5/9/74 - Tarmac claim for extra costs of £22,110.93 on top of the expected £96,182.49, bringing

the total to £118,239.42. “The contract period for the execution of the Works was from 5 th March

1973 to 4th November 1973. In practice work continued on until 30 th November 1973, was

suspended during the winter months in accordance with the requirements of the Severn River

Authority, was resumed on 1st April 1974 and ended on 23rd August 1974. (The Works were

certified as substantially completed on 9th August 1974).” The full details of the claim are to be

found in SRO.4437/11.


Appendix 5 178

„Restoration of the Bridge – Contract Documents‟. The file includes the five original tender

bids, plus the settlement of the winning bidder Tarmac Construction‟s claims for 1973, 1974

and for extra payment due to loss of time in deeper pile driving and loss of equipment during

floods. They argued in August 1974 that the nature of the river bed was not accurately

described in the tender documents. The file includes a diagram, listed as Appendix A, which is

a plan of the coffer dam framework against the south abutment. Another diagram, Appendix M,

is the piling record as installed, the deepest pile being driven down to 92.94 ft AOD (most

went to around 97 ft) with a crest level of 124 ft AOD. The dam was nominally 15 ft deep with

the river bed varying in depth between 105 and 117 ft AOD. Shropshire Record Office. The

piles were cut off at river bed level once the concrete strut was completed. SRO.4437/11.

Film of Iron Bridge Restoration 1972-4

16mm Colour Film with narration by Neil Cossons (apart from first paragraph voice-over by

Magnus Magnussen), BBC 1974, Producer Ray Sutcliffe. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust,

Archives. IGMT.1995.661.

Brief introduction by Neil Cossons about cracks in the Bridge and work “due to start in Spring of

1972” to lighten the north abutment. Cuts to later when in April 1972 work began. Shows the

lower courses of the walls inside the towpath arch being drilled through for the insertion of

stainless steel „Stafix‟ rods. These are to anchor the masonry to the concrete lining which is as yet

un-poured. Excavation from above to remove the fill, revealing the top of the towpath arch;

drilling of the arch from the inside for more rods; reinforcing rods in place and pouring of concrete

over this arch and down the side nearest the river; craning in of concrete deck beams to carry the

road over this hollowed-out abutment. Appears to show little or no concrete on the river face of the

masonry (see IGMT archive file IB 72-89 for contractor‟s reports about this work).

The next sequence starts in April 1973 with resident engineer Alan Kemp describing the

underwater strut from his site office, the Tollhouse. Digging out the coffer dam for the central

block and craning in RSJs to stiffen it; drilling through the block to anchor it to the bedrock with

45ft rods; coffer dam overcome by summer floods on 17th July and again on 6th August (“the worst

summer floods on record” – NC); concrete rising up the south abutment. Final sequence (much

shorter than for 1973), starts in April 1974, when work began again on the north abutment. NC

notes that the stonework low down was out of alignment and then corrected. Ironbridge Gorge

Museum Trust, Archives. IGMT.1995.661.

Tollhouse re-opened; Bridge road deck material renewed and cast iron kerbs added to the

footpaths, selected masonry blocks replaced and the stonework re-pointed, 1975

1975

The Tollhouse opened in Spring, but was formally opened as a Tourist Information Centre 25 th

November 1975 by Ironbridge-born footballer Billy Wright. The road deck material was renewed by

Shropshire County Council. Some masonry blocks in the south abutment and piers were replaced and

the stonework re-pointed.

27/3/75 - Financial Statement to IGMT Board notes that the cost of Stages 1 and 2 was

£147,898.31, of which IGMT had paid £64,799.22. Further funds had been received including a

gift of £2,000 from British Steel and a promise of £5,000 from Tarmac Ltd. (see 4/8/77 for final

figure). IB (R).

Photograph (right) of the restored Tollhouse looking south,

shortly after its informal opening in Spring 1975. The

railings nearest the Tollhouse survive from the period of the

wooden land arches of 1803, but have been realigned

(compare IGMT.1981.1880 of c1964). The ground floor

window has been opened up to provide a second door, and

the tollboard re-mounted in its original location. New

windows have been inserted into the


Appendix 5 179

previously bricked-up openings. Tie rods have been put either side of the central chimney, which

has been lowered to the roof line. The brickwork around the original door was taken down and re-

erected as part of the programme of restoration; it is now 2½ bricks deep, where originally it had

been only 1½ brick deep (see IGMT.1982.2807 of 1921). This re-laying of the bricks also

extended round a considerable part of the south elevation of the building. Virtually the entire east

elevation was re-pointed. The architect for this phase was Lance Smith. The post that had

obstructed the pedestrian gate has been removed and there are two steps down by the gate,

mirrored by two steps up at the far end of the Tollhouse (see IGMT.1981.1878 below). The gate

has two uprights missing and a reinforcing pole at the mid point. The pavement in front of the

Tollhouse is of brick paviours, though these were not evident in the 1964 view and no longer

survive. IGMT.1981.1879.

Photograph of the restored Tollhouse looking

north, shortly after its informal opening (see

IGMT.1981.1879 above for the companion view

looking south). New gutters and downpipes have

been installed. The two steps up at the far end of

the Tollhouse can be seen. The water main

installed in 1972 was located tight against the

railings, but there are signs within this pavement

of another trench having been dug along the

centre line of the footpath for the telephone and

electricity cables. IGMT.1981.1878.

20/6/75 - Report by AB (Anthony „Sam‟ Blackwell): „The Ironbridge - Phase III, Situation - June

1975‟ that the road deck will be removed in 3 separate operations “to maintain arch stability” -

each footpath, and the roadway. However, a photograph in the Museum‟s archive of the work in

progress (see below, IGMT.1981.154) suggests it was done in one go. SRO.4437.9.

24/7/75 - Letter from Gladys Newton, DOE to Bruce Ball that the road deck will be lowered by a

few inches but still had to contain water, gas, electricity and PO ducting. “There is now no hope of

getting Stage 3 finished this year. The County Council are dealing with the road surface, services,

levels and upper surface of the deck plates and we [DOE] will erect the scaffolding and carry out

the cleaning, repair and painting of the ironwork. We have been pressing for completion of the

County‟s part by the end of September this year.” IB (R).

1/8/75 - Drawing by Sam Blackwell of a cast iron

kerb from IGMT‟s collection at Blists Hill

Museum. The casting was used as a pattern for an

order of 242 units @ £5 each, placed in October

1975 with Glynwed Foundries of Coalbrookdale.

It was also used for kerbing around the Square and

along the Wharfage in Ironbridge in 1979.

SRO.4437/10.

4/8/75 - Letter from Bruce Ball to John Smith,

IGMT have completed the restoration of the

Tollhouse; it is open and houses an exhibition

about the history of the Bridge “including a video

tape projection of the film made by the BBC

throughout the first two stages of restoration work.” IB (R).

15/8/75 - Letter from Mr Earle of SF,W&B referring to a site inspection of 7/8/75, which included

an underwater inspection that “revealed a thick deposit of several feet of silt over most of the

surface of the concrete invert.”


Appendix 5 180

25/8/75 - Manuscript note by Sam Blackwell

(Bridge Engineer, SCC), reporting that “the deck

is being uncovered and waterproofed. County

Council staff … are carrying out this operation ...

It involves gaining access under the many services

which make use of the bridge as well as providing

new kerbing and surfacing. The restoration of the

Toll House is now complete and the Department

of the Environment have agreed to restore the

level of the road and footpath in front of the Toll

House to its original level as it was before the

railway was built – below the Toll House door-

step levels.” [This was a condition of John Smith‟s

£50,000 donation. However, a flood caused by rain water run-off entered the Tollhouse in 2000,

suggesting that the footpath had been lowered some time in the past to remedy a similar problem].

The waterproofing of the gaps was done with a mixture of “two parts pitch extended polyurethane

or polysulphide applied by gun. Nitroseal PX220 polyurethane or Evode Polysulphide”.

SRO.4437.9. [Photo: private collection].

On the land arches, the rising flanges of the deck

plates were cleaned back to bare metal, primed

and covered with a 150mm wide flashing strip

before being painted with two coats of

waterproofing. On the main arch, the same

treatment was applied to the butt joints of the deck

plates, but with a flashing strip 200mm wide.

Undated manuscript note in Sam Blackwell‟s

hand, SRO.4437/9, and associated sketch,

SRO.4473.10.

Photograph looking north showing the laying of a

new surface to the Bridge deck. The layer on the

upstream side is done, while on the downstream

half the upper surface of the iron deck plates can

be seen. Furthest from the camera, the wedges that

run either side of each main bearer can be seen

(these also protrude below the plates). The flat

deck plates continue across the top of the inner

pier, beyond which (nearest to the camera) can be

seen the flanged plates of the side arch. They are

bolted together at the flanges and because of the

slope of the deck are holding puddles of water on

the lower side. The repeated freezing and thawing

of this water over the decades has caused the bolt

holes to rust, allowing water to seep through the

joints and drip from the underside of this arch,

often several days after any rainfall. A gas pipe

can be seen on the right, which will be buried

under the downstream footpath. IGMT.1981.154.


Appendix 5 181

Photograph (detail) from the north bank looking

south east during the latter stages of the 1975

restoration programme. Scaffolding is around the

outer pier and south abutment for re-pointing and

selective replacing of the masonry. Some of the

old stonework can be seen near the abutment wall.

A trench has been dug behind the outer pier to

provide access to the lower courses of masonry.

The extended abutment on the downstream side is

no longer visible (see IGMT.1982.2199 of

c1897). The concrete facing of the 1973 work is

evident. IGMT.1982.2839.

Photograph from the north bank looking west

during the latter stages of the 1975 restoration

programme. Scaffolding is around the outer pier

and south abutment for re-pointing and selective

replacing of the masonry. IGMT.1982.2175.

19/11/75 - Letter from Richard Sawtell, County

Secretary of SCC, to Bruce Ball: “the Deed of

Guardianship has been completed and

responsibility for the maintenance of the bridge

has therefore passed to the Department of the

Environment.” IB 72-89.

1976

The arches of the Tontine vaults are rebuilt and topped by a brick wall.

Letter of 12/1/76 from Miss Gerry of DOE to Emyr Thomas (in his role as General Manager of

Telford Development Corporation) refers to payment “... towards the cost of restoration of the

vaults adjacent to the Iron Bridge.” The arches of the Tontine vaults were rebuilt and topped with

a viewing area edged with a brick wall, which drew some complaints (see 18/2/77 below).

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Library & Archive. IB 72-89.

Aerofilms.319351.Y76.UF10. (IGMT.A2781) Aerial photograph, which shows work in progress

rebuilding the Tontine vaults. The structure extends about 15 ft back from the facade and shows a

central wall dividing two spaces. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust.

1977

18/2/77 - Letter from Miss G M Newton (DOE) to Fred Clamp (Secretary, IGMT) referring to

complaints from the public “about the new brickwork which the Department has put up by the

bridge abutments ... the brickwork was deliberately not matched as it was erected where there had

been none previously. Its purpose is for safety. By not matching it there can be no doubt that it is

of a later date and not part of the original structure.” This is the wall where the Chemist block

used to be, and continuing along the edge of the new viewing area built on the re-assembled

stonework of the Tontine vaults. It survived until 1979, when it was replaced (see 24/8/78,

20/9/78, 17/1/79 and 21/2/79 below). Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Library & Archive. B/2/2.

Drawing No T/GEN/800 drawn by SES, March 1977 (Telford Development Corporation) shows

the temporary position of floodlights located on the wall of each abutment a few feet above the

upper horizontal cross stays. This arrangement was tested but had been installed without

permission and DOE insisted it was removed. SRO.4437/10.


Appendix 5 182

22/7/77 - Letter from Keith Hadley (Telford Development Corporation) to Mrs Johnson, resident

of 9 Ladywood, confirming the steps down from the weighbridge house to the towpath would be

rebuilt in brick “replacing the existing precast concrete”. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust,

Archives. B/2/2.

4/8/77 - Chart from SCC showing final cost of Stages 1 and 2, including design costs and fees:

SCC total £25,375.88, DOE £57,814.68, IGMT £64,877.62 – total £148,068.18. Ironbridge

Gorge Museum Trust, Library & Archive. IB (R).

1978

Based on a scheme of 1974 by architect Tom

Ralph of Shrewsbury, Tontine Hill was realigned,

removing the „kink‟ left after the demolition of

the buildings on the corner (see 1946); the

pavements were laid in York stone slabs and

edged with cast iron kerbing made by the

Coalbrookdale Company. Electric cables were

relocated underground and new street lighting

was installed using flat box-like fittings attached

to the buildings. Drawing No 270/5a, Ironbridge

Centre Feasibility Study for the Ironbridge &

Coalbrookdale Society.

24/8/78 - Letter from Simon Ridley, Ancient Monuments Secretariat, DOE, to County Surveyor,

SCC, saying that Stage 3 of the repairs (repainting) would be postponed until after the Bicentenary

in 1979, and that they had decided to do something “...about the brick walls adjacent to the Iron

Bridge which were erected quickly above the [Tontine] vaults for safety reasons during earlier

repairs.” IB 72-89.

20/9/78 - Letter from RJ Mare, County Surveyor, SCC, to Miss GM Newton, DOE, reporting on

the site meeting of 12/8/78. “It was agreed that the new brick parapet over the archway through

the north abutment should be replaced by matching masonry in courses following the rake of the

bridge deck. The same construction but with level courses would apply to the walls of the viewing

platform on the re-constructed stone arches (the Tontine vaults). The conjunction at right angles of

these two walls would involve a pilaster. ... At the Toll House end of the bridge are two newly

paved areas outside the footways. The one adjoining the Toll House was once a small garden

divided from the back of the footway by railings. Here there is now a new brick parapet round the

outside of the area ... It was agreed to erect new railings at the back of the footway and do away

with the parapet. The similar area on the other side of the road would remain enclosed with the

footway but the brick parapet would be replaced by railings.” B/2/2.

12/1/79 - Letter from Fred Clamp (Secretary, IGMT) to Mr Swift, DOE, refers to a trial of the

new floodlighting of the Bridge done on 6th December 1978, which was approved in this letter,

thus dating the new brick housings which replaced a scheme dating back to 1933. The formal

switch on took place on 21st April as part of the Bicentenary of the Bridge. 1979. B/2/2

1979

Brickwork of the parapet on the north west corner was replaced in stone by SCC and the old iron

railings near the Tollhouse were replaced in steel. The viewing platform was completed above the

arches of the Tontine vaults with iron railings replacing the earlier brick wall.

17/1/79 - Letter from RJ Mare, County Surveyor, SCC, to Mrs G Newton, DOE, stating that the

new railings to replace the brick wall (above the Tontine vaults) would be of mild steel. B/2/2.

21/2/79 - Internal memo confirms the replacement of brick walls with stone to a scheme by

architect David Percival. A letter of 3/10/79 confirms that this work had been completed (see

below). IB 72-89.


Appendix 5 183

1/3/79 - Letter from CJA Thompson of DOE to Neil Cossons confirming that the

“replacement of missing uprights [dogbars] and railings on the bridge balustrades, are

expected to be completed on or before the Spring Bank Holiday.” IB 72-89.

7/3/79 - A letter from the resident of the house on the towpath upstream of the Tollhouse, Mrs

Jacqueline Morton, makes it clear that the original railings and brick wall on the abutment by

the Tollhouse had been removed, allowing access right up to the edge of the abutment. As a

result, new railings were erected in line with those on the inner land arch, the ones that are

there now (March 2010). B/2/2.

21/3/79 - Telford Development Corporation memo proposing to re-surfacing the road south of

the Tollgate, from Bridge Road down to the Tollhouse, and to put in a pavement. IB 72-89.

18/9.79 - Letter from Les Sparks (conservation architect, Telford Development Corporation)

to SCC County Surveyor confirms the gas pipe running down the steps next to the

weighbridge house and used as a handrail, was going to be dealt with. A further letter of

17/10/79 confirms that a new gas pipe has been laid under the new brick steps, but that the old

pipe was left for use as a handrail. B/2/2.

3/10/79 - TDC memo from Les Sparks to Emyr Thomas, General Manager, “All the

brickwork was removed and a new viewing platform was built at the northern end ... The

Ancient Monuments Directorate now wish to complete the project by constructing a new stone

wall to continue the north-eastern parapet round to a position close to the War Memorial .

Photograph Spring 1979 from upstream on the southern towpath looking north. The work on

the top of the Tontine vaults arches is in progress, the brick wall having been removed prior to

replacement with a stone capping course and mild steel railings. Chestnut palings fence off the

site at upper and lower levels. The new viewing platform and steps downstream of the Bridge

have been completed. IGMT.1981.134.

The Bridge is repainted after sandblasting off old paint down to bare metal, 1980

1980

The Department of the Environment have the Bridge scaffolded for minor repairs and complete

repainting. Work commenced on 9th April and all scaffolding was removed and the site cleared by

mid-December 1980. See IGMT.1981.115, Report

by Ian Hume, DOE, on the Repairs and Repainting.

IGMT.1981.115.

4/1/80 - Letter from Chris Thompson, DOE, to

Fred Clamp, Secretary, IGMT, “The

scaffolding is expected to be erected some

time in March and to be removed in August”.

The programme was described as 4 weeks

erection, 18 weeks cleaning etc, and 4 weeks

dismantling. B/2/2.

6/3/80 - Letter from Chris Thompson, DOE, to Lawrie

Buckthorpe, Director of Engineering Services, TDC,

confirming that the repair and repainting contract had

been awarded to JD Tighe & Co (Midlands) Ltd, with

Ian Hume as engineer for DOE.

26/3/80 - Letter from Ian Hume, DOE, to Fred Clamp, IGMT, confirming site work will begin 9 th

April “with scaffolding commencing the following week.”


Appendix 5 184

13/6/80 - Letter from Ian Hume of DOE to Tony Herbert of IGMT with text for an information

leaflet, which states: “The bridge has been completely scaffolded ... cleaning is achieved by ...

pumping water at considerable pressure, mixing it with a small quantity of fine sand and then

blasting the surface of the ironwork with the resulting jet ... The cost of the work will be about

£100,000. Work commenced on 9 April 1980 and it is hoped to have the bridge completed by

October 1980. Structural Engineers; Directorate of Ancient Monuments & Historic Buildings,

Department of the Environment.” IB 72-89.

Report by Ian Hume, DOE, on the Repairs and Repainting, p8. “The bridge was blast cleaned

using a water/sand blasting technique to clean the cast iron to bare metal.” Five coats of paint

were used, each a different colour: 1st, an Epoxy Wet steel primer coat (colour, red oxide); 2nd,

a zinc phosphate Epoxy Ester undercoat (yellow); 3rd, a zinc phosphate Epoxy Ester undercoat

(green); 4th, a Micaceous Iron Oxide, Pure Phenolic Tung Oil (grey); and 5th, a Micaceous Iron

Oxide, Pure Phenolic Tung Oil (black). p8. [In fact the „black‟ top coat was a metallic dark grey,

as can be seen in the photograph, left. It shows a

previously un-recorded anomaly – an unused

dovetail housing high up on the central frame].

“All scaffolding was removed and the site

cleared by mid-December 1980.” p10. “There

are many cracks in the main span of the bridge

only a few of which have been repaired. It was

decided after much consideration to do no such

repairs to the main span other than to replace

one broken clamp. The repair work to the 2

subsidiary spans on the south bank involved the

removal and replacement of a number of steel

plates put on as repairs many years ago and

which had corroded sufficiently to fracture the

bolts holding them. Also replaced for cosmetic

reasons were 235 dogbars (small spearheads between railings), 4 finials to main railing uprights, 2

broken sections of the centre railing embellishment upstream side and all of the railing stabilisers

on the 2 subsidiary spans. One broken railing on the downstream side which had been replaced

earlier with 2 steel flats welded together was replaced with a square steel bar.” p11,

IGMT.1981.115.

1985

8/8/85 - Letter from English Heritage to SCC Bridge Engineer, which confirms that two bolts were

fractured and have been replaced on the side span (the inner land arch, S1); also agrees to the

limit of 200 people proposed in June 1985 and for the Police to close the bridge to pedestrians at

their discretion. IB 72-89.

October 1985, report by Ian Hume, English Heritage. „Report on Structural Condition of the

Bridge‟, based on surveys done on 22nd and 23rd April, and 17th July 1985, using binoculars for the

main arch and hydraulic hoists for the side arches. Only one new fracture was observed – on the

circle of frame E, north quadrant; and two bolts had come out of one of the side arches plates after

considerable crowds stood on the Bridge for a Duck race on 6 th May 1985. These were replaced,

along with several dogbars and a finial on the balustrade. IB 72-89.


Appendix 5 185

1986

Crowds on the Bridge watching the second Duck

Race, 5th May 1986 (12,000 numbered plastic

ducks were dropped from the Albert Edwards

bridge a mile upstream, the first one to reach the

Iron Bridge winning its „owner‟ a handsome prize

of a Mini car). Though clearly very popular, the

Museum Trust felt the event was undignified and

refused requests for its repetition.

IGMT.1986.7552.

1990

February 1990 Wrekin Council carry out

landscaping improvements to the area around the

war memorial, adding a low brick wall topped by

railings, and resurface the path through the

accommodation arch with cobbled sets.

IGMT.1990.4276.

1998

The Bridge was handed over to Telford & Wrekin Council, the new Unitary Authority, on 31 st March

1998. A small inspection scaffold is erected in November to investigate claims of new fractures,

though none were found. More numbered joints were discovered by David de Haan, then Deputy

Director of IGMT.

1999

The Bridge is repainted, packing added to support deck plates, selected masonry blocks replaced;

first full Historic Building Survey & Analysis done, 1999/2000

In May a partial scaffold was erected to determine future work, which was to include selective

replacement of masonry blocks, replacement of missing packing below the deck beams, and an

application of two coats of paint to the entire structure. A photogrammetry survey was done in early

September by Plowman Craven Associates of Harpenden, which was then enhanced by English

Heritage‟s Metric Survey Team (above right). An associated historic building survey, record and

analysis programme was commissioned from the Ironbridge Institute, which included a confirmation

that the original colour was dark grey (see entry for 1787). In late September a complete scaffold was

erected (above left) for the repainting programme under the direction of Project Manager Ian Wilson

of Firmingers, Worcester. Ironbridge Archaeology produced a detailed record of the structure.


Appendix 5 186

Painting was almost completed by the end of the year, in most cases having been limited to the

application of a new undercoat and top coat.

Record photographs from the scaffold, winter

1999/2000:

(top) An elongated tenon on the circle of frame D,

north quadrant;

(below) mortice boxes on the deck beams of

frames C to A, north quadrant. The variance of the

spacing between each box shows that each beam

was cast individually to meet the needs of its

location.

2000

On 15th January 2000 new nylon packing (Polyethelene PE300) was inserted between the deck

bearers and deck plates, wherever thought necessary. Masonry was selectively replaced and re-

pointed (above right). In March masonry contractors Dimbylow Crump extracted sandstone from the

original quarry in Ladywood some 200m up the hillside above the south bank and replaced weakened

blocks on the top courses of the main arch abutment and piers (above left). The scaffold was removed

by Easter, after which repairs were done to the railings, which included the casting of some new swan

necks for the main arch. The Bridge was „re-opened‟ on 13th May by Sir Neil Cossons, Chairman of

English Heritage.


Appendix 5 187

(top left) One of the many numbered joint recorded, Rc on the south quadrant of fame A;

(top right) the 1926 steel brace wrapping round lower rib E, north quadrant, alongside the original

wrought iron brace anchor;

(bottom left) inner verticals of frames D and E on the north quadrant, the tilt clearly measurable

against the scaffold poles;

(bottom right) numbers 1 and 1 on each half of the upstream crown joint.

2001

The fixings of the swan necks to the railings were investigated and recorded by Ironbridge Archaeology,

revealing a history of repairs. The railings themselves proved to be stronger than previously thought, but

the swan neck supports at the base of the balustrades were corroded and allowed too much play so failed

the tests. Railing posts are strengthened with carbon fibre sheets on the footpath side and all bolts fixing

the swan necks to the railing uprights were renewed. Worn swan necks were replaced. Protective barriers

remained in place until late April, causing criticism from visitors (Shropshire Star 26 th April 2001).

In October in a programme directed by Deborah Perkin, BBC2 Timewatch recorded the construction of a

half-scale model of the „large scaffold‟ shown in Elias Martin‟s watercolour of 1779 to test its validity

(below). Eighteenth century technology was used – ropes, block-and-tackle, and muscle power. Built

over the canal at Blists Hill, the arrangement provided the ideal lifting points for the ribs when they were

delivered by boat and lifted from below. The experiment supported the theory that in 1779 the major

castings must have been brought by river and therefore poured at Bedlam Furnaces on the river bank

500m downstream from the Bridge, rather than at the Old Furnace in Coalbrookdale. The „temporary‟

half-scale model remained in situ until February 2010.


Appendix 5 188

2002

BBC2 Timewatch programme „The Mystery of the Iron Bridge‟ was broadcast 11 th January. The rushes

were deposited in the IGMT Archive.

2006

In October 12 small holes were dug in the footpaths down to the

deck plates, the locations identified on the English Heritage

plan of July 2006 (left). Rods were inserted to allow future any

movement to be measured. The undersides of these areas were

observed from a cherry picker.

2008

On 8th and 9th September 2008 an underwater inspection was done by Hemsley Orrell Partnership of

Hove to assess the condition of the reinforced concrete strut and review the possibility of re-routing

water mains that are currently under the footpaths in an underwater crossing. 3 The concrete appeared

to be in good condition with no signs of damage due to corrosion of the reinforcing rods. Scour was

noted under the concrete slab jutting out from the bank just downstream of the south abutment, which

they recommended be addressed within five years. However, this slab is not part of the strut, being

the remains of an equipment access route for the 1973-4 work. A crossing point for the water mains

was identified about 50m upstream.

3 HOP Report No 12735/1


Appendix 5 189

In October 2008 a rope survey was done by Vertical Technology Ltd of Emsworth, to ascertain the

existence and condition of cracks in the main arch, and their findings were further analysed in a

report of December 2009 by Conisbee Consulting Structural Engineers of London. They put netting

round one fractured radial on frame C to stop it falling into the river. Comparing a photographic

survey of 80 fractures identified in 1980, in Vertical Technology‟s report they concluded there were

38 additional defects. Though the record is valuable as a condition statement for 2008, a comparison

with a detailed photographic survey of 1999/2000 by IGMT shows that none of these are new

fractures (apart from one possible crack on frame C), being mostly original joints between castings

where there is now some slight evidence of rusting. They also mistakenly report „heavy pitting‟ to all

metal elements, but this is feature of the air surface of all open sand castings and not a new defect.

Conisbee recommended filling all the cracks either with and epoxy resin or an elastomeric polymer

such as Belzona 2111 prior to repainting.

On September 28th and 29th 2008 the Bridge was floodlit as part of the launch of the Cultural

Olympiad in the West Midlands. The scheme had been approved by English Heritage and no light

fittings were attached to the Bridge for this event.


Appendix 5 190

2009

On 25th May a rope survey was done. Vertical Technology reported on this survey in June 2009 having

inspected the restraint wedges protruding below the deck plates, and the results were analysed by

Conisbee in September. In February 2010 two trenches were dug in the pavement against the upstream

railing to investigate the wedges – one at the crown and one almost above the south base plate. At the

latter location a portion of deck plate fell off during the work at the junction of the scallop flange and a

temporary repair was made by Treasures of Ludlow. The broken portion was added to the collection in

the Museum.

Though not recognised in the above reports, the original purpose of the wedges was to align the deck

plates, and while every deck plate was cast with 20 holes for possible wedges many of them did not

need to be used. Many do not engage directly with the deck bearer and it is likely they never did.

However, the engineers believe the wedges provide a lateral restraint for the main frames of the

Bridge at the upper level, and that their absence creates a threat for the stability, particularly of fame

A in the event of the structure being hit by flood debris. Given this premise, English Heritage agreed

it would be prudent to replace all the „defective‟ wedges relating to frame A, the work beginning in

January 2011 for completion by April. Work was done from a trench in the footpath over frame A and

the wedges were replaced in pure iron supplied by Legg Bros of Ettingshall. The contract was

directed by Treasure & Son of Ludlow and the wedges installed by Barr & Grosvenor of

Wolverhampton.


Appendix 5 191

In 2009 Telford & Wrekin Council installed six

inclinometers in boreholes, three on each bank around the

Bridge. Monitoring since then shows small but continuing

land movement on both banks towards the river of around

2-3mm in 18 months at a depth approximately level with

the base plates. The results are so far unpublished but

elements have been made available by Neal Rushton for

this report. The 1972 concrete box within the north

abutment does not stop the movement – in fact the whole

box is subject to this pressure which will continue to be

exerted on the main arch through the horizontal stays. It

was this pressure that caused most of the historical

fractures on the north quadrant.


Appendix 5 192

References

B/2/2. Archive file held by IGMT, identified as „Iron Bridge (1977-81)‟, the Severn Gorge Project

Group file of the Telford Development Corporation (TDC) team based at the Wharfage in Ironbridge

for the restoration of the town

Baugh, CG, and Elrington, CR (eds). 1985. Victoria County History. „A History of the County

of Shropshire: Volume 11: Telford‟

Blackwell, A. 1985. Historic Bridges of Shropshire

BL/ML.KT. British Library, Map Library, King‟s Topography

CBD.59.82.4. Coalbrookdale Company Settling Journal, 1789-1808. IGMT Archives (also referred

to below as „Horsehay and ...‟)

Cossons, N. & Trinder, B. 1979. „The Iron Bridge‟, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

Darby, A. 1771-81. The personal cash book of Abraham Darby III spanning 1771-81. This was in the

Shropshire Record Office, Shrewsbury (Labouchere Archive SRO 2448/1) until July 1993, when it

was transferred to the archives of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust (IGMT.1993.3374)

Dawley Development Corporation. 1965. 1:500 Survey Sheet 0711. IGMT Archives

DOE, 1972. Photogrammetry survey for DOE by Plowman Craven, taken in September. IGMT

Library & Archive

DOE, 1980. Five Elevations of the 1972 photogrammetry survey of the upstream arch, to show

location of fractures recorded in 1948, 1961 and 1980; records out of plumb of the inner verticals.

Scale 1:100. IGMT.1981.119. IGMT Library

de Haan, D. 2001. „Historic Building Survey, Record & Analysis‟, begun in September 1999 and

undertaken by the Ironbridge Institute for Anthony Fleming, Inspector of Ancient Monuments for

English Heritage’s West Midlands Region. A parallel site recording report was done largely by

Shelley White

E214-1939. Joseph Powell pencil and sepia wash sketch. Victoria & Albert Museum

E1857-1946, and E3112/1948. Paul Sandby Munn‟s pencil sketches of 11th July 1802. Victoria &

Albert Museum

Field, J. 1821. Diary of Joshua Field‟s tour of 1821, in Transactions of the Newcomen Society, vol

VI (1925-6) pp30-32

Goodrich Collection. Science Museum, London

Horsehay and Coalbrookdale Company Settling Journal, 1789-1808. IGMT.CBD.59.82.4, IGMT

Archives

Hume. I. 1985. „Report on Structural Condition of the Bridge‟. English Heritage

Hume, I. 1980. „Report on the Repairs and Repainting of the Iron Bridge‟, DOE

IB 78-79. Archive file held by IGMT, „The Iron Bridge‟

IB (R). Archive file held by IGMT, identified as „Iron Bridge (Reconstruction)‟, being mostly E

Bruce Ball‟s correspondence 1971-77. IGMT.1993.736

IGMT. A number prefixed with IGMT relates to an item in the collections of the Ironbridge Gorge

Museum Trust

Madeley. Board of Guardians‟ Minute Book, 1867

Morton, R & Moseley, A. 1970. „An Examination of Fractures in the First Iron Bridge at

Coalbrookdale‟, Journal of West Midlands Studies, 1970, No 2, Wolverhampton Polytechnic

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=65



Appendix 5 193

Mott, B. 1923. Mott, Hay & Anderson. „The Iron Bridge, Shropshire‟. 19 March 1923, pp12.

IGMT.1991.2606

NMR.MAL/65024.193. Aerial photograph. National Monuments Record, Swindon

p38vol90. Anonymous pencil sketch from the National Library of Wales

RL.17929B. Royal Library Windsor Castle. Sketch, nd, included in a collection of drawings

belonging to Thomas Sandby

Russell, J. (nd). Birmingham City Museum & Art Gallery, Fine Art Collection, P115‟51.E29

Sandby, T (attrib). (nd). Royal Library Print Room, Windsor Castle, ref 17929B

Sandford Fawcett, Wilton & Bell. 1972. „The Iron Bridge - Estimate of Cost of Remedial Works to

North Abutment‟. February 1972, pp10. IGMT Archive File IB (R)

Shropshire Record Office:

SRO.3689-98. Minute Book of the Proprietors of the Iron Bridge, 1775-98. Mss 337A, Shropshire

Local Studies Library

SRO. 6001.3697. Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1800-1828

SRO. 6001.3693. Account Book of the Proprietors of the Iron Bridge, 1831-41


SRO.6001.3695. Accounts for expenditure for repair of the Iron Bridge and the roads leading thereto

from 1861 to 1881

SRO.6001.3698. Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1830-61

SRO.6001.3701. Final Report on condition and of repairs carried out on THE IRON BRIDGE -

SALOP, by Luther Griffiths, 1927

Telford Development Corporation. 1973, April. 1:500 Survey Sheet 0710. IGMT Archives

Wellington Journal. 30 August 1902, and 13 November 1937. IGMT Library


Appendix 6

194

Appendix 6

Sequence of erection


Appendix 6

195

Appendix 6 Sequence of erection

Summary

Install all the base plates, then erect the lower ribs

and inner verticals for all five frames, starting

with A, then B, and C (as shown in the Elias

Martin watercolour, left), followed by E, and

lastly D. This is all done with the Martin scaffold

erected just downstream of frame C, which is then

tilted as required up- or downstream to allow each

set of lower ribs to be erected. The footprint of the

two derrick poles remains in the same position.

Stages 1 to 10 below were rehearsed using a half

scale model in October 2001, which proved that

apart from the deck bearers and deck plates, all the large castings were easiest to manoeuvre

if lifted from a barge in the River. [This suggests they were cast on the River bank, probably

at Bedlam Furnaces which was owned by Darby. The deck bearers and deck plates would

have been easier to place if cast in a furnace in the Square.]

The Martin scaffold plus timber cross-bracing allows the middle and upper ribs of frame C to

be erected to test the detail of the upper design, and modifications are made as a result. The

last element to go in place before the outer rib is the outer vertical of frame C. Little of the

stone abutments behind the ironwork is erected during this initial phase. Apply the lessons

learnt to frames B and D, but with temporary timber cross- and diagonal bracing, and at this

stage complete the middle of the abutment apart from the corner ashlar facings where the

outer vertical for frames A and E will be inserted. Bring all 3 inner frames up to just below

deck bearer level. With scaffolding supported from the 5 lower ribs, repeat the process for A

and E, having at some time previously laid each complete frame out on dry land (presumably

at Bedlam) and marked all the castings. Complete the abutments up to deck level. Install the

ogees, circles, crown bearers, deck bearers and deck plates. Install deck plates, parapets, and

lay road metal of clay and slag. Celebrate with ale. Erection time 3 months.


Appendix 6

196

Sequence

1. Abutments. Build lower part of both sandstone

abutments up to base plate level, both where the

ironwork stands and for some way behind that. This

requires coffer dams by each bank that allow working

below water level to a depth of 23ft below the base

plates. Setting out is critical because the base plates

must be parallel and accurately in line. [A correction

had to be made to the north abutment stonework to

realign the top 8 courses because the setting out had not been accurate enough]. The

sandstone is sourced from nearby quarries on both banks of the River within the Little

Flint Coal Measures, each side being used for its respective abutment.

2. Base Plates. Install all 5 base plates on each abutment. Only the central ones (frame C)

have a large shoe for the middle rib, though its function remains unclear. Erect a couple

of courses of masonry overlapping 6 inches of the back of the base plates to trap them

and resist any slipping outwards. This will also counter any tendency of the plates to tip

forwards once loading from the inner vertical is exerted on the riverside edge. Use the

small post holes to the rear edge of each inner upright to erect temporary supports,

learning from experience on the south side where these holes had not been provided.

3. Scaffold. Erect a scaffold frame just to the downstream side of frame C, in the form

shown in the Martin picture. It has two derrick poles about 70ft long standing on the river

bed about 10 feet out from the abutments, and is tied together by a horizontal brace

(made of more than one piece in order to straddle about 120 feet). A block and tackle is

provided at four points – one at the top of each derrick and one on each of the main

diagonal struts at the height of the horizontal brace. Tip the entire frame upstream about

13o until the horizontal brace is over the line of frame A.

4. Inner Verticals, Frame A. Erect the inner verticals

of frame A on both banks, lifting them in turn from

a barge by block and tackle on the pole derricks.

They have a protruding tenon which passes through

an over-size slot in each base plate. The tenon has

an extension on one side, which will key the inner

vertical into the baseplate once pushed along (in the

downstream direction for the north quadrant, and

upstream for the south quadrant). There is an

indentation on the front of the vertical which will

receive the lower rib. Raise the castings into position by teams of men hauling on ropes,

aided by capstans and temporary anchors. Temporarily prop the verticals with ropes and

drive wooden wedges into the base plate slots to push them into their final positions, both

from one side and from behind. By this means the verticals are locked into the base

plates and are pushed as far as they can go towards the river, controlling the requisite

span dimension.

5. Lower Ribs, Frame A. Erect lower ribs of frame A, starting with the female half, ie the

north quadrant in this case. Each half rib is brought by barge on a frame that supports it

in an inverted U position. It will be lifted from the boat using the block and tackle fixed

to the diagonal strut of the scaffold, and the foot will be swung round to rest on the base


Appendix 6

197

plate, its tendency to slip backwards resisted by the indentation in the inner vertical.

A rope from the derrick block and tackle is used to elevate the rib to the correct height.

When the north half of the rib is in place and its upper end is resting on the extended

diagonal scaffold spar (as shown in the Martin picture supporting frame C), the south

quadrant male half can be lowered onto it to close the halving joint. [This resting point

allows for the work to be completed the following day if required, and in fact the

Shrewsbury Chronicle confirmed that the procedure extended over two days – the 1st and

2nd July 1779]. This rib carries the lettering facing upstream, which acts as a prominent

advertisement for Coalbrookdale.

6. The decorative crown detail of this frame also faces upstream. Its 3 bolts are closed up

finger tight by two men standing on the gantry, but tightened further once a plumb line

has been used to check the verticality of the crown joint. The complete rib is made

vertical by its relation to the scaffold gantry across the river and stayed in that position

with guy ropes.

7. Lower Cross Stays of Frame A. Insert the lower cross stays (Ra and Rn) from each bank

side (there is no outer vertical or abutment in the way yet), passing the dovetail at a slight

angle through the over-size slot in the vertical member, and pushing the dovetail into the

housing on the lower rib. Fix them in place with a nut and bolt through the blind dovetail,

plus with temporary blocks and wedges in the aperture of the inner vertical. These will

later be replaced with iron blocks and lead packing once any corrections are made. The

cross stays stiffen the lower ends of the ribs against the verticals. The landward end of

each cross stay is propped up at the correct height on temporary timber struts.

8. Frame B. Tip the Martin gantry back 7o, about 6 feet in

the downstream direction, until it is over the line of

frame B. Repeat the process above (4 to 6) for the inner

verticals, lower ribs and lower cross stays of frame B.

Its decorative crown joint also faces upstream, so the

first quadrant to go up will be the north half, though

there is no lettering on this arch. Secure with guy ropes

and add temporary timber struts to maintain the parallel

space between frames A and B.

9. Frame C. Tip the Martin gantry back a further 6 feet

downstream until it is almost in the vertical position and

over the line of frame C. Repeat the process above (4 to

6) for the inner verticals, lower ribs and cross stays of

frame C, starting with the north quadrant so that the

decorative crown joint faces upstream to match frames

A and B. At this stage we have the inner verticals and

three ribs erected to match the Martin picture.

Temporary bracing and ropes keep them correctly

juxtaposed and vertical, but the structure is increasingly

rigid.

10. Frame E. Tip the scaffold frame back 13o, about 12

feet downstream, so that it is over the line of frame E.

Repeat the process above (4 to 6) for the inner verticals,

lower ribs and lower cross stays of frame E, but this


Appendix 6

198

time placing the female rib on the south quadrant so that the decorative crown joint and

lettering faces downstream.

11. Frame D. Tip the scaffold frame back 7o upstream, about 6 feet, so that it is over the

line of frame D. Repeat the process above (4 to 6) for the inner verticals, lower ribs and

cross stays, placing the female rib on the south quadrant so that the decorative crown

joint faces downstream to match frame E. All five lower ribs have now been erected by

the use of the same scaffold frame, which has completed this phase without having to

dismantle it or move the feet positions.

12. Continue erecting Frame C. The gantry has to be tipped back into the vertical position to

stand alongside frame C, in order to steady many of the castings during the next phase of

erection. Further temporary decking is lashed to the five rib frames to allow smaller

auxiliary single pole derricks to be erected where required. The sequence is described

below from 12 to 19. [Most of this frame was completed before doing any more work on

B and D, because lessons were learnt regarding weights and strengths of radials, and the

need or otherwise for the extra dovetail housings on the outside of the outer rib. It was

also decided not to use the extra housing on the base plate (paragraph 2 above) designed

to receive the foot of the middle rib].

13. Add the Middle Rib to Frame C. A middle rib is lifted

from a barge and slotted through the inner vertical and

lower cross stay, to sit in the large shoe on the middle

deck plate, and braced temporarily to the Martin

gantry while the vertical and circumferential

alignment is checked. Blocks and wedges then fix the

position (later to be replaced with iron wedges and

lead packing). This is done on both quadrants. Its

passage down through the deck plate is halted and

adjusted by driving a wedge through a slot at the

bottom just above the shoe.

14. Add Bracing between the Inner and Middle Ribs of Frame C. After using temporary

timber braces to maintain the 2 arcs parallel with each other, radials Rb, Re, Rj and Rm

are replaced in cast iron and bolted tight. These both hold the ribs the correct distance

apart and also pull them together because of the dovetail. Cast iron ribs of this length can

be bent slightly to allow such adjustment.


Appendix 6

199

15. Add the Upper Cross Stays to Frame C. Like the lower cross stays, the upper ones

(Rb and Rm) will require temporary timber supports for the outer ends because the outer

vertical is not yet there.

16. Insert the Outer Vertical into Frame C. Each one is brought in from behind and slotted

down into the deck plate and over the ends of the upper and lower cross stays. The earlier

temporary timber props can now be dispensed with. Both cross stays extend beyond the

vertical member and a wedge is inserted on either side to trap them in position. There is

no obvious reason why more of the abutment cannot be built up behind this centre

vertical member to give some stronger points of anchorage.

17. Build up the Abutments to Upper Cross Stay level behind Frame C. The lower cross stay

has to have a firm foundation before the outer rib can rest on it, so at this point the lower

part of the abutment has to have the final ashlar course inserted. It makes sense to add it

right up to upper cross stay level so it is rigid enough for the next stage.

18. Insert the Outer Rib on Frame C. Add upper radials

Rd and Rk between the middle and upper ribs of this

frame to maintain the correct radii. The rib sits on

the cross stay at a height controlled by a wedge

passing through a slot in the rib just above the stay.

This rib does not come down to the base plate,

stopping at the lower cross stay, probably to provide

a wider working space for the bow hauliers or horses

that will have to pull boats upstream (see paragraph

30 for the final completion of this rib).

19. All remaining Iron Radials are added to Frame C. These replace any temporary timber

braces, but diagonal braces of timber are left in place. Some radials had already been cast

to standard sizes, but any special ones are cast from a temporary furnace (probably in the

Square) so that different length ones can be called for and fitted rapidly. Frame C is now

complete apart from the ogees, circle, deck bearers and crown bearer.

[It must have been evident at this stage that although the structure was vertical on the

north base plates, it was tilting over on the south. Nevertheless, they decided to proceed

with the other frames as they could align the final abutment facing courses to match the

slope. This also explains why there is one extra short deck plate on the south side next to

the abutment.

Lessons learnt from this trial frame prove that the extra dovetail housings on the outer

rib are superfluous. The outer vertical is assumed to be unnecessarily thin at the upper

level, so ones for the other frames were not reduced in cross section. The whole assembly

does not appear to need the large shoes added onto the middle deck plate. It must have

been a surface-mounted box rather than being cast integrally with the deck plates. The

suggestion that it is a correction to accommodate a rib casting that is too short has little

credence, because this shoe is used on both sides of the river.]

20. Erect the rest of Frames B and D. Follow the sequence above from 12 to 18, probably

with a dedicated team working on each frame. (This explains the increase of the wages

bill at this stage). Temporary timber diagonal and lateral bracing will now add greater


Appendix 6

200

rigidity and allow more timber scaffolding within the lattice work to allow access.

The entire structure is free-standing and rigid, captured only at the base plates and at the

ends of the cross stays.

21. Circles are inserted to Frames B, C and D. They have 2 protruding tenons that locate in

the inner rib and inner vertical, with a 3rd

tenon cast on the top long enough to meet the

deck bearer. The circles are individually cast to diameters to meet the need. The

abutments are completed to the top over this central area.

22. Deck Beams and Crown Bearers are installed to Frames B, C and D. The mortise boxes

are set in each deck beam to meet the rising tenons of all castings below. Each one is cast

for the exact arrangement of each half frame. They are not interchangeable. Assuming

that about 12 inches of deck bearer sits on the abutments, the deck beams are 52ft long

and weigh about 3 tons each. The bearers are probably cast in the Square rather than at

Bedlam, as this is at the level where they are needed and from where they can be largely

slid into position. However, the lifting points for the deck bearers and crown bearer are

higher than anything done earlier, so need derricks supported from the 5 arches below.

23. The Sequence of Erection for Frames A and E follows that of the other Frames. The

pairs of lower ribs had been carefully matched and numbered 1-1 for A, and 2-2 for E,

and the best quality castings were used on these frames. The 3 concentric ribs of frame A

have carpenter’s marks so they cannot be confused with those for frame E. The north

quadrant of frame A goes up first, followed by its matching half, and the south quadrant

of frame E precedes its matching half. [This ‘handed’ arrangement would suggest that

the sequence of the incised numbers on the radials should start from the north quadrant

on frame A, and from the south quadrant for frame E. Unfortunately this is not the case,

as both sets of numbers start from the south side and climb in sequence over to the north

side.] Once the middle and outer ribs are in place, the outer vertical can be located, and

the abutments can now be completed.


Appendix 6

201

24. All Previous Temporary Packing is Replaced in Iron. All intersections are made rigid to

hold the castings tightly against each other, the final gaps being packed with lead. All

dovetails are also packed with lead and all bolts given a final tightening.

25. Add Final Horizontal Braces, Braces and Straps, and Diagonal Braces. The one-piece

horizontal brace is inserted across all 5 inner verticals, with the one for the north

quadrant fitting well, but that for the south quadrant being too short. Part of the inner

vertical of frame A (south quadrant) has to be chiselled away to allow this strap to fit.

The exact method of its fixing into the aperture of the verticals remains unclear, but

undoubtedly depends on wedges. The actual casting used is not the same as the one

shown on the Phillips engraving, or that as used in the contemporary models. Though it

was intended to use similar braces at three positions along the lower ribs [as shown in the

Phillips engraving], the plan was changed and separate braces were inserted between

each rib, the whole being tied by wedges and wrought iron fixings. This reflected the fact

that the space between each main arch was slightly different. These horizontal braces

replace any remaining temporary timber bracing.

The 4 horizontal I-beam braces between each frame are inserted first on the north

quadrant, starting with the lowest set, and are numbered with carpenter’s marks I, II, III

and IIII. Oval wrought-iron O-rings are shrunk onto protruding lugs and straddle the

lower rib above and below the casting. The outer ends are captured by a wrought-iron

loop, and the braces are all tightened by driving in iron wedges on either side of each rib.

The middle and upper sets of braces follow the same sequence, though on the middle set

only III and IIII are clearly marked. On the upper set only I, III and IIII are clearly

marked. There are no corresponding marks on the south quadrant sets, suggesting that the

packing had been done well enough to allow a standard size to be employed. However,

the braces on the south quadrant are of a slightly lighter design, which is the cause of

later fractures. [There is only one of theses lighter braces on the north quadrant, and one

corresponding heavier one on the south quadrant – evidence of a mistake in the erection

and suggesting they happened soon after each other.] The iron diagonal braces are

installed, replacing a temporary timber alternative.


Appendix 6

202

26. Deck Plates are Installed on all 5 Frames. All the deck plates are cast in an air furnace

constructed in the Square near the top of the abutments, rather than at Bedlam, so that

they can be dragged on the level instead of having to be lowed down the bank and then

lifted back up from below. They are 28 feet long, 3 feet wide and 1¾ inches thick,

weighing nearly 3 tons each. There are fragile flanges that protrude downwards near each

end, which makes this a delicate operation. There are 21 plates, with 10 on the north side,

but the south quadrant was 9 inches longer than the north and so required an extra plate,

which extends over the abutment (though later over the inner pier). Each plate is levelled

by packing it up at its outer edges with thin iron plates, as none of the deck plates sit

directly on the deck bearers. Holes left in each deck plate allow for attaching ropes and

give access for crowbars. 6-inch long cast iron wedges are driven into the holes as

required to align the deck plates accurately and resist any sideways movement.

27. Install Deck Fascias, Railing Posts, Swan Necks and Railings. The swan necks support

the railing posts via a single fixing to the upright and another one to the deck plate. The

triangle is completed below the over-hanging deck plate ends via a small decorative

bracket. Gaps between the railing bars are filled with short decorative dog bars, which

are slotted and splined into position.

28. Top out with Slag and Clay to provide a Road Surface. This deck is about 12 inches

deep and will require continual resurfacing with ash and slag.

29. Celebrate with ale. Total erection time of the ironwork - 3 months, July to September

1779. No castings were rejected and no breakages or injuries were sustained.

30. Continue to build Approach Roads. This work runs through 1780 and into late summer

of 1781, despite the Bridge opening to traffic on 1 January 1781.

31. Add the ‘Missing Ribs. The lower section of each outer rib from the lower horizontal

stay to the base plate is not added until June 1791, despite being in the original scheme as

shown on the Phillips engraving. Unlike all other parts of the Bridge, these are hollow

castings. They are inserted from below and bolted back to the outer verticals and capped

with a decorative foot.

Illustration Sources

Page 1. Title image: 1779 Watercolour sketch by Elias Martin (1739-1818), © Skandia

Company, Stockholm.

Engraving by William Ellis, published by James Phillips in 1782, with nomenclature annotations added by the author. Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust (IGMT) 1999.

Paragraphs 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12: Computer images by Bill Blake, English Heritage, 2002.

Para 13: Numbering convention for the decorative radials. IGMT 2000.

Para 17: Sketch by John Russell, not dated but c1790, showing the Middle Rib only coming down as far as the lower cross stay. Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery.

Para 22: Numbered castings on Frame A recorded from the site by the author. IGMT 2000.

Para 24: Numbered casting on Frames other than A or E, recorded from the site by the

author. IGMT, 2000.


Appendix 6

203


Appendix 7

204

Appendix 7

Visitors’ descriptions


Appendix 7

205

Appendix 7 Visitors’ descriptions

A selection of extracts from Trinder, B 2005 (3rd

edition) The most extraordinary

district in the world: Ironbridge & Coalbrookdale, Phillimore, demonstrating the effect

of the Bridge on Travellers to the area.

1. Arthur Young June 1776, Tours in England & Wales

“Crossed the Severn ferry at Lincoln Hill, in the midst of a most noble scenery of exceeding

bold mountainous tracts, with the river rolling at the bottom. The opposite shore is one

immense steep hanging wood. Mounted through that wood, thickly scattered with cottages,

the inhabitants busily employed in the vast works of various kinds carried on in this

neighbourhood.”

“Crossing the ferry where Mr Darby has undertaken to build a bridge of one arch of 120 ’ of

cast iron.” (Trinder 2005)

2. 1776 A Pennsylvania Quaker Jabez Maude Fisher (1750-79)

“… a far greater and more wonderful piece of Architecture is now in agitation by the

enterprising Owners of these works, a fabric which England or the whole Globe cannot equal.

This is an Iron bridge to cross the river Severn to consist of one arch only. This will be a

regular circle. The span from side to side is near 196 feet … the whole will be made of cast

iron without an ounce of any sort of material about it. It may be taken to pieces at any time.

And should it ever become out of order it will very easily be rectified.” (Trinder 2005)

3. The diary of Samuel Butler, 14th

March 1782

“The bridge itself makes a light & elegant appearance tho’ apparently no way deficient in

strength. In viewing it either up or down water it resembles an elegant arch in some ancient

cathedral … whilst viewing the Bridge a loaded vessel passed under it and tho’ they said the

river was then 4’ higher than low water mark, yet the bridge appeared to be many feet above

the top of the mast” (Trinder 2005)

4. John Byng, later 5th

Viscount Torrington, July 20 1784

“But of the iron bridge over the Severn … what shall I say? That it must be the admiration as

it is one of the wonders of the world. It was cast in the year 1778: the arch is 100 feet wide

and 55 feet from the top of the water and the whole length is 100 yards: the county agreed

with the founder to finish it for £6,000and have meanly made him suffer for his noble

undertaking.” (Trinder 2005)

5. Francois & Alexandre de la Rochefoucauld, 13 March 1785

Long description of the bridge. “The iron bridge over the River Severn in Coalbrookdale is a

work unique of its kind: not only is the arch made entirely of iron, but so are all the parts of

the bridge ... As we left I looked again at the Iron Bridge. Its elegance and simplicity pleased

me extremely.” (Trinder 2005)

6. An Italian aristocrat visiting in 1787

“In the midst of the gloom I descended to the Severn which runs slowly between two high

mountains, and after leaving which passes under a bridge constructed entirely of iron. It

appears as a gate of mystery”. (Trinder 2005)


Appendix 7

206

7. An American paper maker, Joshua Gilpin, 8 Nov 1796

“… the iron bridge has a beautiful appearance on both sides – has proved very strong”

(Trinder 2005).

8. Henry Skrine, travel writer, 1798

“We made a precipitate decent to the Romantic scene of Coalbrook Dale, where the river,

winding between a variety of high wooded hills, opposite to the forges of Broseley, is crossed

by a bridge of one arch, 100ft in length, and formed entirely of cast iron, with strong stone

abutments, which present at once a striking effect in landscape & a stupendous specimen of

the powers of mechanism.” (Trinder 2005)

9. Charles Dibdin the Elder, 1745-1814, who visited Coalbrookdale in 1787

“The Iron Bridge I think is the most beautiful of the three (Bridgewater & Sunderland) ... for

though it seems like a network wrought in iron, it will apparently lay uninjured for ages.

Coalbrookdale wants nothing but Cerberus to give you the idea of a heathen hell. The Severn

may pass for the Styx, with this difference, that Charon, turned turnpike man, ushers you over

the bridge instead of rowing in his crazy boat; the men and women might easily be mistaken

for devils and fairies, and the entrance of any of these blazing caverns where they polish the

cylinders, for Tartarus”. (Trinder 2005)

10. Dr Samuel Heinrich Spiker (1786-1858), librarian to the King of Prussia, visited in 1816

and published in 1820

“The little village of Iron bridge is a very agreeable place. The tontine Inn, of the best and

cheapest inns in England, close to the Bridge, of which we had a view from our bed-room

windows, with the hills beyond it and of the banks of the river, with furnaces on it to the left.

From the bridge itself there is a beautiful view down the river and of the works on both banks,

which by night are doubly picturesque: the whole of the adjoining country being then strongly

illuminated by means of the flames from the furnaces … [mentions a bridge just cast for Mr

Brewing of Carlow in Ireland of 40 foot span and another one for the Liffey in Ireland –the

Halfpenny Bridge – “of 140 feet span and twelve feet in height, was also in hand, the cost of

which was to be one thousand pounds sterling.”] (Trinder 2005)

11. James Naysmith (1808-90), mechanical engineer, visited Coalbrookdale in 1830

“I saw the first iron bridge constructed in England, an object of historical interest in that class

of structures. It was because of the superb quality of the castings produced in Coalbrookdale

that the ironmasters were able to accomplish the building of a bridge of that material which

before had baffled all projectors both at home and abroad.” (Trinder 2005)

12. Charles Hulbert (1837), History & Description of the County of Salop

“From Coalport to Ironbridge, two miles, the river passes through the most extraordinary

district in the world : the banks on each side are elevated to the height of from 3 to 400 feet,

studded with Iron Works, Brickworks, Boat Building Establishments, Retail Stores, Inns, and

Houses; perhaps 150 vessels on the river, actively employed or waiting for cargoes; while

hundreds and hundreds of busy mortals are assiduously engaged, melting with the heat of the

roaring furnace; and though enveloped in the thickest smoke and incessant dust are cheerful

and happy.

Ironbridge. Here we may say is the mercantile part of Madeley … Navigation being also

carried on to a very considerable extent, gives to Ironbridge the character and appearance of

an inland port.” (Trinder 2005)


Appendix 7

207

13. 1877 Victorian excursions

“… staying at the Crown Inn on Hodge Bower … we visited Buildwas Abbey, the Iron

Bridge, Wrekin, Messer’s Maws works, Mr Southorn’s Pipe works, Benthall Edge, the

rotunda, Limestone cavers etc etc...” (Trinder 2005)

14. James John Hissey (1847-1921), travel writer in 1913

“It was an unwelcome change from the rural pleasantness of the country about Buildwas,

coming to the squalid and smoky town of Ironbridge in Coalbrookdale ... Ironbridge gains

its name of course, from the bridge of iron that spans the Severn there in one bold arch. At

the time of the building of the bridge in 1779, it was considered a great engineering feat,

even a thing of beauty, tho I saw no beauty in it except the curve of the arch. Its black

colour is out of tune with the landscape, it seems to have no part in it. ….

I believe that this structure at Ironbridge was the first of the kind of any size built in

England and was thought a wonder in its day. How distant seems that day! Now people

have ceased to wonder at it or at anything else.” (Trinder 2005)

15. LTC Rolt (1910-74), engineer and appreciator of industry visited in 1942 or 3

“… I explored the Dale and the Ironbridge Gorge on foot, I came fully to share the feelings of

those bygone artists. Although the famous bridge still spans the severn, and men cast iron in

the foundry at Coalbrookdale, the blast furnaces are dead … Yet the whole area seemed to me

to be haunted. Everywhere I was reminded of the fierce activity of former days, and every

stick and stone of the place seemed to have absorbed something of its white hot violence. It

was here that Abraham Darby the First succeeded in smelting iron with coke instead of

charcoal; here that the first iron hull was made and launched; the first iron steam engine

cylinders, and the first iron rails were cast; here that the first steam locomotive was built to

the design of Richard Trevithick. Yet I needed no such recital of historical facts to tell me that

it was here that it had all begun. I could feel it on my pulses; and if I needed any reminder, the

great black semicircle of Darby’s iron bridge, springing over the Severn, spoke to me more

eloquently than any history book.” (Trinder 2005)

Cruickshank, D. 2010 Bridges: Heroic designs that changed the world, Collins

“… the boisterous and precocious child of the industrial revolution. Not the first bridge to use

iron, nor revolutionary design as much like a masonry bridge & cast iron members disposed

as a in contemporary timber bridges – but first all – iron bridge …

New Industrial age of mass production yet possesses a Georgian elegance and regard for

ornament. It is made of iron but elements are mortised, wedged & screwed as if timber. Darby

knew the material must be used in compression not in tension which is its weakness –

therefore all loads transmitted vertically down and individual elements in compression …

bridges define places. Their ability to inspire, transform, and unite is unique and their

structural working is nothing short of incredible”. (Cruickshank 2010.50)


Appendix 8 208

Appendix 8

Public consultation


Appendix 8 209

Appendix 8 Public consultation

Conservation Plan for the Iron Bridge – Consultation August 2010

A public consultation questionnaire (a copy is to be found at the end of the Appendix) was sent out to a wide range of individuals and bodies with a view to building an understanding of the significance of the Iron Bridge in terms of heritage and community values, as well as seeking views relating to its current and future conservation and management. This consultation gives some early indication of views relating to the care and future development of the Iron Bridge and will form the basis for further work.

Respondent feedback has been structured in such a way as to group comments by theme, including the management and conservation of the Iron Bridge and its immediate surroundings, commentary relating to the Bridge‟s interpretive and educational values and suggested improvements in these key areas.

41 questionnaires were sent out to a range of individuals and organisations including conservation establishments, local authorities and heritage, environmental, historical, community and business

organisations. 19 questionnaire returns were made, giving a good representative sample, including all key stakeholders. Further comment following the consultation was made by Telford & Wrekin Council Engineering Services and the Severn Gorge Countryside Trust.

Significance and Value

Being asked to prioritise the historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal value of the Iron Bridge,

the majority of respondents prioritised historical value highest, with the fabric of the Bridge (evidential) and aesthetic also being given significant weighting. This is perhaps not surprising in that without ensuring the ongoing conservation of the Bridge, its use to users would be restricted.

Question 1: Please rank the following considerations in order of priority for you (1 being most important, 4 being least important):

Historical value: the historical significance and associations of the Iron Bridge

Evidential value: the importance of the fabric of the Iron Bridge itself

Aesthetic value: the appearance of the Iron Bridge and the surrounding environment

Communal value: the significance of the Iron Bridge to users Respondent

number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Historical 4 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Evidential 1 2 4 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 1 4 2 3 2

Aesthetic 2 4 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2

Communal 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 2

In terms of historical and evidential value, the Iron Bridge was seen by respondents as an internationally recognised symbol of the Industrial Revolution, of innovation and an integral part of our national history, which in turn had shaped the wider world.

The Iron Bridge was also valued by some respondents as a source of inspiration for new technologies and entrepreneurship - „Design leads innovation and manufacturing, which in turn creates jobs and wealth‟. It was seen as the „centrepiece‟ of the World Heritage Site and the core driver for attracting tourism and stimulating the commercial life of both the local community and the wider borough. Care of the Iron Bridge, therefore, impacted on first impressions for both visitors and members of the local community.


Appendix 8 210

„The aesthetic appearance of the Bridge is, of course, timeless within the Severn Gorge; it is iconic, with the communal value of the Bridge to users modest in comparison‟.

„The Iron Bridge is central to a living and working community and is symbolic of an age of innovation that still inspires us today‟.

„The Properties & Education Department seek to promote understanding and enjoyment of the historic properties in English Heritage‟s care, whilst ensuring their preservation for future generations‟.

In terms of the fabric of the Iron Bridge and its maintenance and conservation and whether it should be

returned to its original condition /appearance or whether later repairs be noted as part of its ongoing history, the majority of respondents considered it was best to clearly show later repairs and alterations as it formed part of the Iron Bridge‟s ongoing history. In terms of specifics, one respondent considered the Bridge deck road surface should be returned to its configuration of around 1900, i.e. without pavements and kerbing and that the surface should resemble in appearance the original covering of clay mixed with blast furnace slag. However, recognition of the impracticality of returning the Bridge to its original 18th century condition was highlighted by one respondent as it would require demolition of the land arches of the south bank of the River Severn.

The Bridge Setting – Approach and Surrounding Areas

In terms of prioritisation of setting, the approach to the Iron Bridge at road level was prioritised most highly by respondents, with the appearance of the Tollhouse also being prioritised highly by many. The importance of the Ironbridge Town Square and the river level approach to the Iron Bridge was also noted, whilst car parking was prioritised lowest overall.

Question 2:

Please rank the following aspects of the setting of the Bridge in order of priority for you (from 1 being

the most important to 6 being the least important):

The Tollhouse

The car park

The Tontine Inn

The approaches to the Iron Bridge at river level

The approaches to the Iron Bridge at road level

Ironbridge town square

Respondent

number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Toll House 1 4 4 1 4 3 5 3 4 4 2 5 1 4 1 5 3 5 1

Car Park 2 5 5 3 5 6 6 5 5 5 2 6 2 6 2 3 4 3 6

Tontine Inn 4 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 3 4 5 6 5

Approach, River Level 1 6 6 4 3 5 2 6 6 2 2 1 4 1 5 5 6 1 1

Approach, Road Level 1 3 1 5 6 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 5 4 1 1 4 4

Town Square 3 1 2 6 1 4 4 4 1 4 2 3 6 3 6 2 2 2 3

There were a number of specific points raised within questions 1 and 2 relating to the immediate surroundings of the Iron Bridge. In terms of the approach to the Iron Bridge at river and road level, there were some concerns expressed regarding the health & safety of visitors and of areas which crossed Guardianship.

The Town Square was seen by several respondents as the prime focus after crossing the Iron Bridge. Several references were made relating to the Square, one respondent saw it as being highly congested and dysfunctional as a Square and meeting place, one that it was detached from the spatial context of

other features and others referred to a need for a serious upgrade (especially the Central Café property). Reference to the impact on first impressions for visitors to Ironbridge was also made.


Appendix 8 211

Broader issues were raised by respondents that whilst the restoration of the Iron Bridge and its surroundings had created a „tourism honey pot‟, a sense of ownership amongst newer residents of the town was questioned.

Some respondents expressed concerns over the level to which the Gorge had reverted to being a heavily wooded landscape. The value of the north bank towpath to enable visitors to get close to the Iron Bridge structure was cited as a positive feature, while the south bank offered a more natural aspect. Another respondent ranked the north bank setting of the Iron Bridge as being a higher priority

than the south bank setting due to its close relationship to the townscape of the north bank, including the Square and the Tontine Hotel, stating that „this is the most important aspect of the various settings of the Bridge. This is also probably the aspect most people will view the Bridge from‟.

The pedestrian approach to the north bank arch was considered poor with no vernacular integrity. The Iron Bridge car park provided the best first impression of the Bridge and, as such, required appropriate visitor and aesthetic management.

The changing face of the river was considered an important factor in strengthening the river level approach. One respondent suggested a boardwalk along the Wharfage, as an improvement to safety and one which would support a greater appreciation of the river. There was an identified need to look at the Iron Bridge setting as a whole, including the quality of the built environment, interpretation and physical access, together with looking at ways in which the quality of the retail offer could be improved in the town itself.

The importance of the 18th century Tontine Hotel and the Square and its former role as a destination for tourists to view the Iron Bridge in the 1780s was also highlighted and referenced by more than one respondent.

Improvements to the Public Realm of the Iron Bridge

Most aspects of the public realm (e.g. pavements, bollards, lighting) were considered of value. Suggested priorities for improvement are summarised as follows:

- Need for a clear design guide to be in place so that improvements form a cohesive whole – taking into account pavements, bollards, lighting, etc., but also landscaping around the Iron Bridge

- Implementation of a coordinated, high-quality scheme for street furniture and public areas (road and pavement surfaces, hard and soft landscaping, etc.)

- The refurbishment of the Iron Bridge itself

- Lighting of the Iron Bridge - illumination at night, lighting along the river Wharfage. It was stated, however, that flood lighting should not destroy the simple integrity of the structure

- Use of high quality materials in keeping with the Iron Bridge and what it represents in terms of quality

- Improved quality of the painting of street furniture

- Improvement to the Square

- Review of the number of bollards, including whether the total number could be reduced, and concerns with the future siting of them

- Regular cleaning of graffiti

- Improved historical accuracy of detailing, e.g. cast iron curbs with no historical validity.

Improvements to the Management of the Woodland of the Gorge and the wider

Environment

General comments were made about the good work of the Severn Gorge Countryside Trust. Specific suggestions included:


Appendix 8 212

- Improvement of woodland trails to the south of the River for walkers

- Reduction of tree cover to open up vistas and expose important structures e.g. the Severn Valley Railway viaduct between the Ironbridge picnic site and the Power Station, and the vistas visible from the Rotunda

- Removal of excess vegetation to expose Wharfage walls

- Opening up the railway line to the south of the River

- Guarding of the railway as an alternate form of transportation for the future

- Improvement to the east-west footpath running along the old railway line, general vigilance of footpath conditions

- Importance of design and management to achieve an effective interplay between the natural and the man-made environments

- Improvements to signage, including consistency of branding and de-cluttering of local signage

- Need for a joined up management approach and the important role of the World Heritage Site Steering Group in helping to ensure effective coordination

- Interpretation to show how the Wharfage has changed

- The woodland of the Gorge is an important aspect which should be effectively managed to ensure the integrity of the Iron Bridge and surrounding area.

Future Facilities

In terms of facilities that would improve Ironbridge town and enhance the experience of the Iron Bridge, suggestions included:

- Change the Square from being a car dominated space to being a people dominated space – the car park in the Square would make a wonderful public space for people if the cars were removed

- Implement a coordinated scheme for street furniture and the treatment of the hard surfaces

- Tidy up the River banks

- Expose and restore the Wharfage walls to recreate the sense of Ironbridge being a river port

- Close the Wharfage to all but essential traffic

- Introduce period style seating

- Control signage outside commercial premises

- Establish a World Heritage Site Interpretation Centre at the heart of the World Heritage Site (the Museum of the Gorge?)

- New use of the Museum of the Gorge for all players in the Ironbridge story to contribute to all experiences of the Iron Bridge – wildlife, archaeology, river life, engineering past and present

- Museum of the Gorge - multi-lingual interpretation would be desirable

- Improved toilet facilities – even after significant investment in 2008, the facilities are still not up to the standard one would expect at the heart of a World Heritage Site. Relocate them to within a new visitor centre within the Museum of the Gorge

- Railway connectivity

- 24 hour ATM

- Easier transport around museum sites, fewer cars

- Better use of the Museum Gift Shop (more relevant books)


Appendix 8 213

- Attraction of business and the reduction in vacant shop premises, better shops, addition of a convenience store

- Information in the Tollhouse, the Tollhouse open more often

- Improvements to the Tontine Inn

- Most week days: no parking in the Square and plenty of pavement seating

- Frequent bus services

- Cast iron kerbing is good and in keeping with the area. Litter bins of cast iron

- A local market – a vibrant trading heart of the town with local services restored.

Interpretation and information improvements relating to the Iron Bridge

Comments and suggestions relating to the Iron Bridge in terms of interpretation and the improvement of information included the following:

- There is very limited interpretation about the Iron Bridge in close proximity to the Bridge itself

apart from the display in the Tollhouse, which is not always open to the public. The storage areas below the Bridge (with wooden doors) offer potential to house a display, though this would require someone to open and close them on a daily basis

- More interpretation covering the elements of design, manufacturing and its construction as well as making the link with Coalbrookdale. The social dimension of the community of the 18 th century, who conceived it, patterns of usage of the Bridge.

- Use of the Buttermarket to enhance the history of the Gorge

- Addition of more interpretation boards for visitor information

- Care with design and location of additional interpretation to prevent distraction

- Interpretation on both north and south sides of the Iron Bridge and the role of the Museum of the Gorge in understanding the bigger picture

- Use of Ironbridge World Heritage Site branding

- Mobile downloads or podcasts to avoid heavy signage use

- Local awareness of the need to apply to English Heritage for permission to use the Iron Bridge for third party events is low, a better means of disseminating this information and reasons for this procedure could be improved

- Interpretation in the Tollhouse is good

- Tollhouse is not open enough

- Role of the Tollhouse as a source of information from people rather than boards

- Changing display in the Tollhouse (every 2 years)

- Improved accessibility of interpretation (panels behind the barn doors of the Tontine Inn)

- Use of the Interpretation Strategy created for the Ironbridge Gorge by consultants PLB and funded by ERDF grant. Move towards more integrated interpretation as per this Strategy

Earliest Memory of the Iron Bridge

- „As a boy visiting Ironbridge with my parents on a Saturday afternoon drive out. It was a very popular venue from Wolverhampton where I grew up and running across it and throwing sticks into the river from the top was always a delight‟.

- „My first visit to the Iron Bridge was in 1970 as a student on a field trip to Telford as part of my University town planning course‟.


Appendix 8 214

- „1981 – I opened a restaurant on the Wharfage and my apartment overlooked the Iron Bridge – in spite of the most challenging trading three years of my business life, I never tired of looking at that wonderful structure from my sitting room window - it lifted my heart every night that I lived in the town. It‟s a magical place – left forlorn and neglected and it‟s heartbreaking to see the detritus gathering around this inspiring monument right now‟.

- „Moving into the area in 1978, coming down Jiggers Bank – a scary experience! Then driving through Ironbridge and seeing the Bridge. It felt like coming into something really special and different‟.

- „Learning about it at school and University in the 70s/80s, but first visiting it in about 2005 and being very impressed by the span‟.

- „1971, when I came to meet Neil Cossons and prepare a promotional exhibition at the Science Museum where I worked‟.

Educational value of the Iron Bridge

- „The educational value of the Iron Bridge is immense – it has relevance to many aspects of academic study and the curriculum, including history, science and maths, economics (e.g. tourism), art and design, etc. It is also relevant to teaching at all levels from primary school to Higher Education‟.

- „The Iron Bridge is the “epicentre” of the World Heritage Site and is also an icon of the Industrial Revolution. The Bridge and the wider World Heritage Site have considerable educational

potential, some of which is not yet tapped into. For example, UNESCO‟s “World Heritage in Small Hands” is a useful teaching resource which demonstrates the relevance of World Heritage to a range of educational topics for children. The Bridge can be viewed as an important symbol which can be a focus for such teaching‟.

- „The Iron Bridge symbolises the optimistic aspects of those profound changes in British society that are often called the Industrial Revolution. Crossing the bridge, going underneath it, or seeing it from the river remain profound experiences. How the Bridge is interpreted will change as historical understanding and education practices develop. The essentials are that it remains accessible, and that, particularly in Higher Education, the Bridge (and fieldwork generally) remains part of the agenda‟.

- „The educational value is huge, and underused. I would like to see the schools throughout Telford & Wrekin be encouraged to look at the history of their own area and relate it to the Ironbridge

Gorge. For example, the pools at Horsehay, the furnaces at Granville Park. Very often Ironbridge is seen as the only place where the Industrial Revolution happened, rather than see the importance of the whole area. I feel it would give more of a sense of place‟.

- „Considerable educational value (history, culture, engineering, visual). Note that there is little information about how it „works‟ visually‟.

- „As a well recognised symbol of the Industrial Revolution; technological history; social and economic history. Continue to build on existing good practice for young generations‟.

- „I think this is fully covered in both the original World Heritage Site submission in the 1980s and

in the various World Heritage Site management plans, together with the Leverhulme study by Davies in the 1980s and the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust‟s own education work. I don‟t think I could add much to all that! Other than to ensure broader educational opportunities are maximised (adult education, arts and culture, modern social history, overseas development of skills ...)‟.

- „Clearly it has a lively and strong story to tell in the history of the Industrial Revolution and also engineering. The Bridge could be used to tell a number of stories and demonstrate a great deal across the curriculum. A number of methods could be used to develop the educational value: on-line resources, teachers‟ packs, guided tours, DVD/CD Roms, downloads/podcasts, etc. all of which have their place depending on the resources available‟.


Appendix 8 215

- „It carries a huge educational value as it is the iconic symbol of the Industrial Revolution and the design, technology and innovation that resulted from that time have shaped the world we live in today‟.

- „An example of the start of modern engineering. The interpretation of the Bridge MUST be kept for the instruction of study and admiration of the visitors, old and young. Conferences, study days, etc. Should be held at Coalbrookdale to cater for all types of visitors and interested groups it should become a venue for prize giving for civil engineers‟.

- „High for the local area and should be used as a tool for education around the history /beginning of the Industrial Revolution, but also recognise the „modern‟ role it plays today – links to entrepreneurship and enterprise, etc.‟

- „I would like to see the old market hall in the Square taken back to its original (more or less) condition and used as a formal education centre, particularly for students and tourists. There is

enough space to equip a state of the art facility and do even better that Blaenavon have done for their World Heritage Site‟.

Many respondents concluded by expressing a continuing desire to play an active part in the future development of the Iron Bridge.


Appendix 8 216

Consultees

The public consultation questionnaire was sent out to over 40 individuals and organisations, including conservation bodies, local authorities, community and business organisations, and heritage, environmental and historical groups. Responses were received from:

Michael Barker, Telford & Wrekin Council Bill Blake, consultant but previously English Heritage Anna Brennand, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

Alan Capewell, English Heritage Eric Carter, Telford & Wrekin Council Beth Cavanagh, English Heritage Claire Critchell, Telford & Wrekin Council Michael Darby, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust David de Haan, Ironbridge Institute Harriet Devlin, Ironbridge Institute

Fay Easton, Shropshire Enterprises Katie Foster, Heritage and Tourism consultant Rebecca Gutierrez, Telford & Wrekin Council Vanesa Harbar, World Heritage Site Manager from 2010, Telford & Wrekin Council Rob Harding, English Heritage Kath Hardman, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Ian Hume, consultant but previously English Heritage

Simon Kenyon-Slaney, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Bill Klemperer, English Heritage Lorraine Knowles, English Heritage Louise Lomax, Gorge Parish Council Jonathan Lloyd, World Heritage Site Manager until 2010, Telford & Wrekin Council Steve Miller, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Ian Pickles, Broseley Town Council Colin Pitcher, Telford & Wrekin Council

Gillian Pope, Broseley Local History Society Russell Rowley, Severn Gorge Countryside Trust Neal Rushton, Telford & Wrekin Council Heather Sebire, English Heritage Keith Smith, Telford & Wrekin Council Michael Taylor, English Heritage Barrie Trinder, historian

Michael Vout, Telford & Wrekin Council Barrie Williams, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Richard Zeizer, English Heritage.


Appendix 8 217

A Conservation Plan for the Iron Bridge, Shropshire

Public Consultation Questionnaire

Understanding heritage and community values, and planning for current and future conservation

management of the Iron Bridge – we welcome your views.

Name: ...................................................................................................................... ...................

Position & Organisation: ............................................................................................................

Contact details (telephone no. & email) .................................................................................... .

Questions

1. Please rank the following considerations in order of priority for you:

Historical value: the historical significance and associations of the Iron Bridge

Evidential value: the importance of the fabric of the Iron Bridge itself

Aesthetic value: the appearance of the Iron Bridge and the surrounding environment

Communal value: the significance of the Iron Bridge to users. Please state reasoning for selection.

2. Please rank the following aspects of the setting of the Bridge in order of priority for you:

The Tollhouse

The car park

The Tontine Inn

The approaches to the Iron Bridge at river level

The approaches to the Iron Bridge at road level

Ironbridge town square Please state reasoning for selection

3. Do you consider that the „public realm‟ elements enhance the setting of the Bridge, if so what

improvements would you like to see such as paving, bollards, lighting or similar aspects?

4. Is there sufficient interpretation and information about the Iron Bridge? If not, what would

you like to see improved?

5. What are your views relating to the management of surrounding woodland and

environment? (i.e. re-creation of Historic vistas, maintenance of pathways and trails,

woodland /wildlife conservation, environmental concerns).

6. What facilities in Ironbridge town would enhance your experience of the Iron Bridge?

7. Should the programme of maintenance and conservation seek to return the Iron Bridge to

its original condition /appearance or should later repairs and alterations be recognised as

part of its history?

8. What is your earliest memory of the Iron Bridge?

9. What is the educational value of the Iron Bridge and how would you like to see this

developed?

10. Would you be willing to be involved in activities associated with the interpretation of the

Iron Bridge and its history and ongoing conservation, and if so what sort of activities

would appeal to you?

PLEASE RETURN QUESTIONNAIRES BY: 9 AUGUST 2010

Where possible we would prefer questionnaires to be returned electronically, to [email protected], or if you are returning by post please send to: Carol Bowsher, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, Coalbrookdale, Telford, Shropshire TF8 7DQ.

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix 9 218

Appendix 9

List and location of

major archives

Appendix 9

List and location

of major archives


Appendix 9 219

Appendix 9 List and location of major archives

English Heritage

Record Number Title First Paper Last Paper Status Location

AA090655/1 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, SHROPSHIRE - SCHEDULING - CO MON N0. 106

22 July 1933 08 June 1998 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/1/PT2 THE IRONBRIDGE - THE WREKIN - SHROPSHIRE - NATIONAL MONUMENT N0. 27558

13 September 1996 Not Set Wansdyke Security

AA090655/13 THE IRON BRIDGE - SALOP - DAMAGE, THEFT ETC

13 November 1984 13 March 1985 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/14 THE IRONBRIDGE - BI-CENTENARY EXHIBITION 1979 - & 1976 EXHIBITION

21 January 1976 Not Set NO MOVEMENT SINCE

AA090655/2 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SALOP - WKS /14/2011

01 January 1945 31 December 1955

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

AA090655/2-1 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE -

SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR PROJECT - SMCC 6 - SCHEDULED MONUMENT CONSENT

01 May 1999 18 July 2001 CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

AA090655/2-1/3290 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - HISTORIC MIANTENANCE - SMCC VI

28 March 1994 16 November 2000

CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/2-1/PT2 THE IRON BRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - SHROPSHIRE - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO 27558 - SCHEDULED MONUMENT CONSENT

01 July 2006 Not Set Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/2-3 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RECORDING - CO MON NO 106 ( PAPERS NOW ON AA 92274/2-3)

19 June 1991 Not Set NO MOVEMENT SINCE

AA090655/2/PT11 THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SALOP

14 December 1979 18 December 1984


AA090655/2/PT12 THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, SALOP - WORKS

11 January 1985 28 July 1988 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/2/PT13 THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, SALOP - WORKS

27 November 1991 21 July 1993 CLOSED PA 93

AA090655/2/PT14 THE IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAIR AND REPAINTING 1979-85 - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS INC REPORTS - AND PLANS - (RETAINED

FOR EH ARCHIVE)


Wansdyke Security

http://sdctrm01/webdrawer/rec/117558/














Appendix 9 220

AA090655/2/PT15 THE IRON BRIDGE - THE GORGE -

TELFORD AND WREKIN - SHROPSHIRE - NATIONAL

MONUMENT NO 27558 - GENERAL WORKS

01 October 2006 Not Set Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/2/PT2 THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SALOP - WKS 14/2574

10 August 1955 31 December 1967

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

AA090655/22 IRONBRIDGE GORGE MUSEUM TRUST - MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS

- INCLUDING IRONBRIDGE QUARTERLY

15 April 1971 Not Set Wansdyke Security

AA090655/2200/3A IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - PRE-CONTRACT

07 October 1999 Not Set CANCELLED

AA090655/2200/3B1 IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - RESOURCE

07 October 1999 Not Set Missenden, Jackie

AA090655/2200/3B2 IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS -

RESOURCE PAYMENTS


AA090655/2200/3C IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

01 July 1999 17 August 1999 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/2200/3D IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE -

TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - CONTRACT

07 October 1999 Not Set Missenden,

Jackie

AA090655/2200/3E IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - MINUTES

12 August 1999 01 March 2000 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/2200/3F IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - PAYMENTS


AA090655/2200/3G IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE -

REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - RECORD


AA090655/2200/3H IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - CDM


AA090655/2200/3J IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE -

REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - CONSENTS
















Appendix 9 221

AA090655/2200/3K IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - OFFICERS INSTRUCTIONS


AA090655/22A IRONBRIDGE GORGE MUSEUM

TRUST - REQUEST FOR DOE GRANT - AID FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS

11 December 1973 Not Set NO

MOVEMENT SINCE

AA090655/25 THE IRON BRIDGE - FLOODLIGHTING BY - TELFORD NEWTOWN CORPORATION.

18 February 1977 Not Set Wansdyke Security

AA090655/25/PT2 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE,

SHROPSHIRE - FLOODLIGHTING BY - TELFORD NEWTOWN CORPORATION

18 February 1991 18 February 1991 CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

AA090655/27 THE IRONBRIDGE GORGE MUSEUM - WORKING GROUP

03 October 1988 14 April 1989 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/27/PC1 THE IRONBRIDGE GORGE MUSEUM -

WORKING GROUP

16 November 1992 Not Set Wansdyke

Security

AA090655/27/PT2 THE IRONBRIDGE GORGE MUSEUM - WORKING GROUP


CLOSED Bravo, Sam




09 October 1990 13 October 1992 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/27/PT5 THE IRONBRIDGE GEORGE MUSEUM - WORKING GROUP

27 October 1992 24 May 1996 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/27/PT6 THE IRONBRIDGE GEORGE MUSEUM

- WORKING GROUP

03 June 1996 Not Set Wansdyke

Security

AA090655/28 TREE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR PIC SITES - THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, SHROPSHIRE - MONUMENT NO.326

22 February 1991 Not Set Georgiou, Ari

AA090655/29 P.I.C. GROUNDS MAINTENANCE

REVIEW. - THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, SHROPSHIRE - MONUMENT NO.326 <FILE CANCELLED>

30 April 1991 Not Set DESTROYED

AA090655/2C THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, SHROPSHIRE - WARDEN'S BUILDING



AA090655/2D THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, SHROPSHIRE - IRONBRIDGE GORGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY

17 August 1989 03 October 1991 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/2E THE IRONBRIDGE - SALOP - PROPOSED NEW BRIDGE AT LADYWOOD

15 January 1990 18 February 1991 CLOSED Wansdyke Security


















Appendix 9 222

AA090655/2F THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE,

SHROPSHIRE - TOLL HOUSE DEVELOPMENT

Not Set 27 October 1992 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/3 THE IRONBRIDGE - SALOP - GUARDIANSHIP

05 April 1972 07 March 1995 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/30 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - EVENTS

24 March 1995 01 February 1996 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/30/PT2 THE IRON BRIDGE - THE GORGE -

TELFORD AND WREKIN - SHROPSHIRE - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO 27558 - EVENTS

01 November 2006 Not Set Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/31 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - WORLD HERITAGE SITE

06 July 1993 21 July 2001 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/31/PT2 THE IRON BRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - SHROPSHIRE - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO 27558 - WORLD HERITAGE SITE


AA090655/32 THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - PLANNING

PROPOSALS

09 February 1996 Not Set Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/33 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - ENGINEERS' INSPECTIONS

13 February 1996 15 October 1996 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/34 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE GORGE - IRONBRIDGE -

SHROPSHIRE - APPROVAL / BOARD / APPRAISALS

01 June 1999 Not Set Zeizer, Richard

AA090655/35 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR PROJECT - MANAGEMENT MEETINGS

09 April 1999 24 November 1999


AA090655/35/A THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR PROJECT - PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEY

20 May 1999 05 January 2001 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/35/A/PC1 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR PROJECT -

PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEY

Not Set Not Set CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/35/B THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR PROJECT - SURVEY RECORD AND ANALYSIS

14 June 1999 19 June 2002 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/35/B/PT2 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL

MONUMENT NO. 27558 - REPAINING AND REPAIR PROJECT - SURVEY RECORD AND ANALYSIS

01 September 1999 29 February 2000

















Appendix 9 223

AA090655/35/B/PT3 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO. 27558 - REPAINING AND REPAIR PROJECT - SURVEY RECORD AND ANALYSIS

Not Set 30 May 2002 CLOSED Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/35/C THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR PROJECT - PAINT RESEARCH



AA090655/35/D THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR PROJECT - GEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

28 September 1999 30 May 2000 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/35/E THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR PROJECT - UNDERWATER SURVEY

02 November 1998 Not Set Wansdyke Security

AA090655/35/F THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND

REPAIR PROJECT - VIDEO RECORDING

29 February 2000 Not Set Wansdyke Security

AA090655/35/PT2 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO 27558 - REPAINTING AND REPAIR PROJECT -

MANAGEMENT MEETINGS


AA090655/36 THE IRON BRIDGE - THE WREKIN - SHROPSHIRE. NATIONAL NO 27558 - SETTING OF IRON BRIDGE - AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OF - LANDING STAGE

23 July 2001 18 October 2002 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/37 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO. 27558 - TOLL HOUSE - INTERNAL REFURBISHMENT

13 January 2003 20 February 2003


AA090655/38 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL

MONUMENT NO. 27558 - BBC TIMEWATCH - MYSTERY OF THE IRON BRIDGE

27 June 2001 07 January 2002 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/39 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO. 27558 - REPAIRS TO BALUSTRADE 2003

07 July 2003 Not Set Fleming, Tony

AA090655/4 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - SITE MANAGEMENT

10 May 1995 Not Set Cole, Sue

AA090655/40 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO. 27558 - METALLURGY

15 May 1998 Not Set Wansdyke Security














Appendix 9 224

AA090655/41 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE -

TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO. 27558 - RECORD

AND ANALYSIS - SURVEY DRAWINGS

01 May 2002 01 May 2002 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/42 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO. 27558 - SURVEY RECORD AND ANALYSIS - RECORD DRAWINGS

01 February 2002 01 May 2002 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/43 THE IRON BRIDGE - TELFORD - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO. 27558 - CONSERVATRION WORKS 2006-2008 - (INC. DECK AND RESURFACING)

06 June 2005 Not Set Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/43/PC1 THE IRON BRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD + WREKIN - SHROPSHIRE -

NAT MON NO 27558 - CONSERVATION WORKS (INCL. DESK RESURFACING)

Not Set Not Set Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/43/PT2 THE IRON BRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD + WREKIN - SHROPSHIRE - NAT MON NO 27558 - CONSERVATION WORKS (INCL.

DESK RESURFACING)

Not Set Not Set Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/44 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO. 27558 - BRIDGE LIGHTING SCHEME

20 December 2005 Not Set Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/45 THE IRON BRIDGE - THE GORGE -

TELFORD AND WREKIN - SHROPSHIRE - NATIONAL MONUMENT NO 27558 - SURVEYS/ANALSIS - GENERAL FILE

01 July 2004 Not Set Wansdyke

Security

AA090655/46 THE IRONBRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - MANAGEMENT OF MAINTENANCE

WORK - FEB 1999 - AUG 1999

08 February 1999 10 August 1999 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/47 THE IRONBRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - MANAGEMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORK - AUG 1999 - DEC 1999



AA090655/48 THE IRONBRIDGE - THE GORGE -

TELFORD AND WREKIN - MANAGEMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORK - DEC 1999 - SEPT 2001

19 April 1999 27 September

2001

CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

AA090655/49 THE IRONBRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - MANAGEMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORK - 2003 - 2006

04 June 2003 17 October 2005 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/50 THE IRONBRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - MANAGEMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORK - 2006 PT1

29 March 2006 06 September 2006















Appendix 9 225

AA090655/50/PT2 THE IRONBRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - MANAGEMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORK - 2006 PT2

18 September 2006 24 November 2006


AA090655/51 THE IRONBRIDGE - THE GORGE -

TELFORD AND WREKIN - MANAGEMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORK - 2006 - 2007

23 May 2006 21 February 2007 CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

AA090655/52 THE IRONBRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD AND WREKIN - MANAGEMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORK - 2007

13 February 2007 27 September 2007


AA090655/53 THE IRON BRIDGE - THE GORGE - TELFORD + WREKIN - CONSERVATION PLAN 2010

01 September 2010 Not Set Hayes, Natalie

AA090655/8 THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, - SHROPSHIRE - ADMISSIONS

25 August 1992 01 September 1992


AA090655/8A THE IRON BRIDGE - SALOP, SHROPSHIRE - SPECIAL ADMISSIONS

04 June 1987 05 December 1990


AA090655/9 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE, SHROPSHIRE - PRESENTATION - CO MON NO 106

03 August 1989 18 July 1990 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/9/PT2 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE SHROPSHIRE - PRESENTATION

15 February 1994 Not Set GRAY R J H

AA090655/9A THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE SHROPSHIRE - EDUCATION SERVICE

22 December 1993 Not Set Missing From: HANNAN AUDREY

AA090655/AMP001 ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

- CONDITION SURVEY - IRON BRIDGE - 2009

20 August 2009 08 January 2010 CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

AA090655/INF THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE SHROPSHIRE - HISTORICAL RESEARCH INFORMATION

14 October 1997 14 March 2007 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA090655/SOP IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE -

SHROPSHIRE - SITE OPERATIONAL PLAN

01 March 1997 Not Set Wansdyke

Security

AA092274/2-3/PC1 THE IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER - SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING -- INCLS PAPERS FROM AA 90655/2-3 –

Not Set Not Set Missing From: RA 326 SR

AZ090655/2/PT4 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SALOP WORKS

21 September 1970 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

AZ090655/2/PT8 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - EARLY INDUSTRIAL MONUMENTS - THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE SALOP WORKS

16 August 1974 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

















Appendix 9 226

WS76035/S/PT1 THE IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR

11 December 1975 08 December 1978

CLOSED HOPKINS DON

WS76035/S/PT5 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS - THE IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR


AA092274/2-3 THE IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER - SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING --INCLUDES PAPERS FROM - AA 90655/2-3-

13 August 1991 01 September 1992


AA092274/2-3/PC8 IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER -

IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING

24 September 1996 27 September

1996

CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

APE090655/009/001 THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - NO: 01021

Not Set Not Set Lincoln University

AA092274/2-3/PC9 IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE -

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING

24 September 1996 01 October 1996 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA092274/2-3/PC9 IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING

24 September 1996 01 October 1996 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA092274/2-3/PT2 THE IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY

TRANSFER - SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING -- INCLS PAPERS FROM AA 90655/2-3-

01 December 1992 12 January 1994 CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

WS30291/S/PT2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS - THE IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE. GENERAL FILE



01 July 1980 26 September 1980

CLOSED HOPKINS DON


03 September 1996 01 February 1997 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA092274/2-3/PC2 THE IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY

TRANSFER - SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING

Not Set 01 March 1995 CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

AZ090655/2/PT10 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SALOP WORKS

22 February 1979 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

LM090655/0001 LANDSCAPE MONUMENTS - THE

IRON BRIDGE IRONBRIDGE SHROPSHIRE - ADMINISTRATIVE

28 April 1994 03 April 1996 CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

COEN018913 IRONBRIDGE REPAIRS 2010 - REPLACE WEDGES ON FRAME A AND WATER MAIN

01 January 2010 Not Set Sturgess, Lynne (Ms)

AA092274/2-3/PC10 IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE -




















Appendix 9 227

AA092274/2-3/PC6 IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAELOGICAL RECORDING

15 August 1996 22 August 1996 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA092274/2-3/PT4 THE IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER - SHROPSHIRE -

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDINGS

23 November 1994 18 June 1998 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AZ090655/2 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - EARLY INDUSTRIAL MONUMENTS - THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE SALOP WORKS

26 October 1971 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

AZ090655/2/PT3 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - EARLY

INDUSTRIAL MONUMENTS - THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE SALOP WORKS

12 June 1967 Not Set Accidentally

Destroyed

C100663/M/001 IRON BRIDGE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - PLANNING SUPERVISOR - CONSULTANT

CONTRACT - WORKS

01 May 1999 Not Set Zeizer, Richard

COEN018914 IRONBRIDGE - DECKING WEDGES - WEDGE REPLACEMENT TRIALS

01 December 2009 Not Set Sturgess, Lynne (Ms)

AZ090655/2/PT7 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - EARLY INDUSTRIAL MONUMENTS - THE

IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE SALOP WORKS

20 June 1973 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

AZ091781/3 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - EARLY INDUSTRIAL MONUMENTS - IRONBRIDGE TOLL HOUSE IRONBRIDGE - SALOP - OFFER OF GUARDIANSHIP - X-REF AR 91781/3

21 April 1972 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed



CLOSED HOPKINS DON


04 January 1980 25 June 1980 CLOSED HOPKINS DON

C101944/W/001 IRONBRIDGE - WORK TO REPLACE

DEFECTIVE WEDGES - CONTRACT FILE

Not Set Not Set Dixon, Alexis

(Ms)

AA092274/2-3/PC3 THE IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER - SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDINGS

16 July 1993 25 August 1995 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA092274/2-3/PC4 THE IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY

TRANSFER - SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDINGS

23 November 1994 24 November

1997

CLOSED Wansdyke

Security


15 August 1996 28 January 1997 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AA092274/2-3/PT3 THE IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY

RANSFER - TRANSFER SHROPSHIRE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING

31 August 1993 21 November

1994

CLOSED Wansdyke

Security

















Appendix 9 228

AZ090655/2B ANCIENT MONUMENTS - THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SALOP PAYMENTS

03 July 1964 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

C100679/M/001 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE GORGE - IRONBRIDGE -

SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIRS - WORKS CONTRACT

01 June 1999 Not Set Zeizer, Richard

COEN012838/PT3 THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE

11 May 2000 Not Set Wansdyke Security

ST090655/000/01 IRONBRIDGE - 99/131/2P - SURVEY TEAM - PHOTOGRAMMETRIC

PHOTOGRAPHY

01 March 2000 Not Set Dyer (see address), Kathy

WS30291/S THE IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - GENERAL FILE - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

09 April 1976 14 November 1991

CLOSED HOPKINS DON

AA092274/2-3/PC5 THE IRONBRIDGE PROPERTY TRANSFER - SHROPSHIRE -


03 January 1996 16 February 1999 CLOSED Wansdyke Security

AZ090655/21 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - EARLY INDUSTRIAL MONUMENTS - THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE SALOP PRESS NOTICES

19 January 1972 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

AZ090655/23 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - EARLY INDUSTRIAL MONUMENTS - IRONBRIDGE GORGE LANDSCHPING AND ENVIRONS - PROPOSED WORKING PARTY

30 December 1974 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

AZ090655/24 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - THE IRON BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - SALOP

PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEY

24 June 1975 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

AZ092048/2 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - STONE VAULTS ADJACENT TO IRON - BRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE - WREKIN,SALOP WORKS

13 October 1975 Not Set Accidentally Destroyed

AZ092048/3 ANCIENT MONUMENTS - STONE

ARCHES - ADJACENT TO THE IRONBRIDGE - IRONBRIDGE,WREKIN,SALOP. GUARDIANSHIP

01 August 1975 Not Set Accidentally

Destroyed

WS76035/S/PC1 THE IRONBRIDGE - SHROPSHIRE - REPAINTING AND REPAIR

Not Set 01 December 1980















Appendix 9 229

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust Library and Archives

B/2/2. 1977-1981. Archive file identified as ‘Iron Bridge (1977-81)’. The Severn Gorge

Project Group file of the Telford Development Corporation (TDC) team, then based at the Wharfage in Ironbridge for the restoration of the town

de Haan, D. 2001. Historic Building Survey, Record & Analysis, begun in September 1999

and undertaken by the Ironbridge Institute for Anthony Fleming, then Inspector of Ancient

Monuments for the West Midlands Region. The site recording in a companion volume was largely done by Shelley White

DOE. 1972. Photogrammetry survey for DOE by Plowman Craven, taken in September. This is the photograph record from which the elevation was drawn

Hume, I. 1985. Report on Structural Condition of the Bridge, English Heritage

Hume, I. 1980. Report on the Repairs and Repainting of the Iron Bridge, DOE

IB 72-89. ‘The Iron Bridge’, archive file or correspondence held by IGMT

IB (R). Archive file held by IGMT, identified as ‘Iron Bridge (Reconstruction)’, being mostly

E Bruce Ball’s correspondence 1971-77. IGMT.1993.736

IGMT.CBD.59.82.4 Horsehay and Coalbrookdale Company Settling Journal, 1789-1808

IGMT.1981.119. DOE. 1980. Five Elevations of the 1972 photogrammetry survey of the

upstream arch, to show location of fractures recorded in 1948, 1961 and 1980; and records out of plumb of the inner verticals. Scale 1:100.

IGMT.1991.2606. Mott, B. 1923. Mott, Hay & Anderson. The Iron Bridge, Shropshire.

19 March 1923, pp12

IGMT.1993.3374. Darby, A. 1771-81. The personal cash book of Abraham Darby III. This is

in the archives of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, having previously been in the Shropshire Record Office, Shrewsbury (Labouchere Archive SRO 2448/1) until July 1993

Ironbridge Archaeology. 2002. The Iron Bridge Railing Survey, Record & Analysis.

Ironbridge Archaeology Series 110

Sandford Fawcett, Wilton & Bell. 1972. The Iron Bridge – Estimate of Cost of Remedial Works to North Abutment. February 1972, pp10. In IGMT Archive File IB (R)

Survey Sheet 0710 Telford Development Corporation. 1973, April. 1:500

Survey Sheet 0711 Dawley Development Corporation. 1965. 1:500

Wellington Journal. 13 November 1937

Wellington Journal. 30 August 1902

Shropshire Records and Research, Shrewsbury

Shrewsbury Chronicle. 10th

July 1779

SRO.3689-98. Minute Book of the Proprietors of the Iron Bridge, 1775-98. Mss 337A

SRO. 6001.3697. Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1800-1828




Appendix 9 230

SRO.6001.3695. Accounts for expenditure for repair of the Iron Bridge and the roads leading thereto from 1861 to 1881

SRO.6001.3698. Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1830-61

SRO.6001.3701. Final Report on condition and of repairs carried out on THE IRON

BRIDGE, by Luther Griffiths, 1927


Appendix 9 231


Appendix 10 232

Appendix 10

Primary sources and

bibliography


Appendix 10 233

Appendix 10 Primary sources and bibliography

Primary Sources

B/2/2. 1977-1981. Archive file held by IGMT, identified as ‘Iron Bridge (1977-81)’. This is

the Severn Gorge Project Group file of the Telford Development Corporation (TDC) team,

then based at the Wharfage in Ironbridge for the restoration of the town

BL/ML.KT. British Library, Map Library, King’s Topography

CBD.59.82.4. 1789-1808. Coalbrookdale Company Settling Journal, 1789-1808. IGMT Archives (also referred to below as Horsehay and ...)

Colin Davis Associates. 2010. Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site: Public Realm Design Guide, (draft) Telford & Wrekin Council, English Heritage and Shropshire Council

Conisbee Consulting Engineers. 2009. The Iron Bridge: Report on the Cracks, for English

Heritage. This is based on the roped access inspection by Vertical Technologies

Conisbee Consulting Engineers. 2009. The Iron Bridge: Comparison of 1980 and 2009 Crack Surveys, for English Heritage. Based on the roped access inspection by Vertical Technologies

Conisbee Consulting Engineers. 2009. The Iron Bridge: Risk Assessment due to Restraint Wedge Defects, for English Heritage

Darby, A. 1771-81. The personal cash book of Abraham Darby III. This is in the archives of

the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust (IGMT.1993.3374), having previously been in the Shropshire Record Office, Shrewsbury (Labouchere Archive SRO 2448/1) until July 1993

Dawley Development Corporation. 1965. 1:500 Survey Sheet 0711. IGMT Archives

DOE. 1972. Photogrammetry survey for DOE by Plowman Craven, taken in September. IGMT Library & Archive. This is the photograph record from which the elevation was drawn

DOE. 1980. Five Elevations of the 1972 photogrammetry survey of the upstream arch, to

show location of fractures recorded in 1948, 1961 and 1980; and records out of plumb of the inner verticals. Scale 1:100. IGMT.1981.119. IGMT Library

de Haan, D. 2001. Historic Building Survey, Record & Analysis, begun in September 1999

and undertaken by the Ironbridge Institute for Anthony Fleming, Inspector of Ancient

Monuments for the West Midlands Region. The site recording was largely done by Shelley White, while the survey of historic information was carried out by David de Haan

E214-1939. Victoria & Albert Museum. Pencil and sepia wash sketch by Joseph Powell

E1857-1946, and E3112/1948. Victoria & Albert Museum. Paul Sandby Munn’s pencil sketches of 11

th July 1802

English Heritage. 2010. Iron Bridge. Periodic Condition Survey Report, and Defects. This is

heavily based on Ian Hume’s report of 2008.

English Heritage. 2008. Report on Boundary of Guardianship Area. By William Du Croz (EH) and Jonathan Lloyd (TWC), some of the ownership assignments are innacurate

Goodrich Collection. Science Museum, London

High-Point Rendel. 2005. Ironbridge Gorge Landslides: Ironbridge and Coalbrookdale Ground Behaviour Study, for Telford & Wrekin Council

Hemsley Orrell Partnership. 2008. Underwater Inspection Between Abutments


Appendix 10 234

Horsehay and Coalbrookdale Company Settling Journal, 1789-1808. IGMT.CBD.59.82.4. IGMT Archives

Hume, I. 2008. The Ironbridge, Ironbridge, Shropshire – A review of future works to be

carried out by English Heritage

Hume, I. 1985. Report on Structural Condition of the Bridge, English Heritage

Hume, I. 1980. Report on the Repairs and Repainting of the Iron Bridge, DOE

IB 72-89. ‘The Iron Bridge’, archive file or correspondence held by IGMT

IB (R). Archive file held by IGMT, identified as ‘Iron Bridge (Reconstruction)’, being mostly E Bruce Ball’s correspondence 1971-77. IGMT.1993.736

IGMT. Items with this prefixed relate to archives, pictures or photographs in the collection of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

Ironbridge Archaeology. 2002. The Iron Bridge Railing Survey, Record & Analysis.

Ironbridge Archaeology Series 110

Madeley. 1867. Board of Guardians’ Minute Book

Mott, B. 1923. Mott, Hay & Anderson. The Iron Bridge, Shropshire. 19 March 1923, pp12. IGMT.1991.2606

NMR.MAL/65024.193. 1965. Aerial photograph. National Monuments Record, Swindon

p38vol90. National Library of Wales. Anonymous pencil sketch

RL.17929B. Royal Library Windsor Castle. Sketch, (nd), included in a collection of drawings belonging to Thomas Sandby

Russell, J. (nd). Birmingham City Museum & Art Gallery, Fine Art Collection. Sketch by

John Russell. P115’51.E29

Sandby, T. (nd). Royal Library Print Room, Windsor Castle, ref 17929B. Elevation of the Bridge attributed to Thomas Sandby

Sandford Fawcett, Wilton & Bell. 1972. The Iron Bridge – Estimate of Cost of Remedial Works to North Abutment. February 1972, pp10. IGMT Archive File IB (R)

Scandia Company, Stockholm, owners of the only known watercolour of the Bridge under

construction in 1779

Shrewsbury Chronicle, 10th

July 1779. Shropshire Record Office

SRO.3689-98. Minute Book of the Proprietors of the Iron Bridge, 1775-98. Mss 337A, Shropshire Record Office

SRO. 6001.3697. Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1800-1828. Shropshire Record Office

SRO. 6001.3693. Account Book of the Proprietors of the Iron Bridge, 1831-41. Shropshire

Record Office

SRO. 6001.3694. Account Book of the Proprietors of the Iron Bridge, 1841-61. Shropshire

Record Office

SRO.6001.3695. Accounts for expenditure for repair of the Iron Bridge and the roads leading thereto from 1861 to 1881, Shropshire Record Office


Appendix 10 235

SRO.6001.3698. Minute Book of the Trustees of the Iron Bridge, 1830-61, Shropshire Record Office

SRO.6001.3701. Final Report on condition and of repairs carried out on THE IRON

BRIDGE, by Luther Griffiths, 1927. Shropshire Record Office

Svedenstierna, 1973. (trans Dellow), IGMT Library

Telford Development Corporation. 1973, April. 1:500 Survey Sheet 0710. IGMT Archives

Vertical Technology Ltd. 2009. Iron Bridge, Shropshire: Roped Access Inspection, October 2008 and May 2009, for English Heritage

Vertical Technology Ltd. 2009. Iron Bridge, Shropshire: Roped Access Inspection of the Deck Plate Restraint Wedges, June 2009, for English Heritage

Wellington Journal. 13 November 1937. IGMT Library

Wellington Journal. 30 August 1902. IGMT Library

Policies and Plans – National

DCMS, DCLG & English Heritage. 2010. Planning Policy Statement 5, Planning for the Historic Environment

DCLG. 2009. Circular 07/09: Protection of World Heritage Sites

English Heritage. 2009. The Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites in England

DCLG, DCMS, English Heritage

English Heritage. 2008. Conservation Principles, Policies & Guidance for the sustainable management of the Historic Environment

Policies and Plans – Local

Broseley District Council. Broseley Parish Plan

Environment Agency. Local Environment Action Plan (Middle Severn)

Gorge Parish Council. 2008. The Gorge Parish Plan 2008-2013

Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust. Strategic Plan 2010-2014

Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site Strategy Group. 2008. Building on the past, investing in the future. IG 2020 Vision

Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site Strategy Group. 2009. Ironbridge Gorge World

Heritage Site Business Plan, 2009-2014

Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site Strategy Group. 2001. Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site Management Plan, 2001-2010

Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site Strategy Group. 2008. Ironbridge Gorge WHS Overarching Interpretation Strategy

Madeley Parish Council. Madeley Parish Plan

Shropshire Council and Telford & Wrekin Council. 2009. Evolution, Revolution &

Innovation – A Cultural Strategy for Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin 2009-2014

Shropshire County Council. Shropshire Local Transport Plan


Appendix 10 236

Shropshire County Council. Shropshire Structure Plan

Severn Gorge Countryside Trust. 2006. Development Strategy, 2006-2011

Severn Gorge Countryside Trust. 1998. Severn Gorge Landscape Assessment Ashmead Price and Steven Warnock

Severn Gorge Countryside Trust. Management Plans for all sites [see also SGCT list of

relevant countryside reports]

Telford & Wrekin Council. Draft statement of Outstanding Universal Value – Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site. 2011

Telford & Wrekin Council. 2010. Land instability in the Gorge

Telford & Wrekin Council. 2008. Volume & Value Assessment

Telford & Wrekin Council. 2006. Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2006-2016

Telford & Wrekin Local. Transport Plan

Telford & Wrekin Council. January 2010. Shop Fronts and Signage Design. Guidance in Conservation Areas SPG [draft]

Telford & Wrekin Council. Wrekin Local Plan 1995-2006 [many policies are still current]

West Midlands’ Visitor Economy Strategy

Bibliography

Baugh, CG, and Elrington, CR (eds). 1985. Victoria County History. ‘A History of the County of Shropshire: Volume 11: Telford

Blackwell, A. 1985. Historic Bridges of Shropshire

Briggs, A. 1979. Iron Bridge to Crystal Palace: impact and images of the Industrial Revolution, Thames & Hudson

Cossons, N & Trinder, B. 2002. The Iron Bridge: symbol of the Industrial Revolution,

Phillimore

Cossons, N & Trinder, B. 1979. The Iron Bridge, IGMT

Cossons, N & Trinder, B. 2002. The Iron Bridge, Phillimore

Cruickshank, D. 2010. Bridges: Heroic designs that changed the world, Collins

English Heritage. 2008. Conservation Principles, Policies & Guidance for the sustainable management of the Historic Environment

Field, J. 1821. Diary of Joshua Field’s tour of 1821. Transactions of the Newcomen Society, vol VI (1925-6) pp30-32

Heritage Lottery Fund. 2008. Conservation Management Planning

Hooke, D. 2006. England’s Landscape: The West Midlands, English Heritage, Collins

Morton, R & Moseley, A. 1970. ‘An Examination of Fractures in the First Iron Bridge at

Coalbrookdale’, Journal of West Midlands Studies, 1970, No 2, Wolverhampton Polytechnic

Newcomen Society. 1924. Visit to Coalbrookdale on Thursday 19th

July 1924. Transactions of the Newcomen Society, Vol IV, 1923-24, 110




Appendix 10 237

Powell, J. 2009. Ironbridge Gorge through time, Amberley Publishing

Raistrick, A. 1989. Dynasty of Ironfounders: The Darbys and Coalbrookdale, a facsimile reprint of the book first published 1953

RCHAMW. 2008. Pontcysyllte Aqueduct & canal nomination as a World Heritage Site,

Management Plan 2007-12, Wrexham County Borough Council

Semple Kerr, J. 2004. The Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance, 6

th edition

Smith, SB. 1979. A view from the Bridge, Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

Trinder, B. 2005. The most extraordinary district in the world: Ironbridge & Coalbrookdale (3

rd edition), Phillimore

Trinder, B. 2005. Barges and bargemen: A social history of the Upper Severn Navigation

1660-1900, Phillimore

Trinder, B. 1996. The Industrial archaeology of Shropshire, Phillimore

Trinder, B. 1983. A History of Shropshire, Phillimore

Conservation Management Plan for the Iron Bridge, Ironbridge, Shropshire, UK

Documents

Transcript of Conservation Management Plan for the Iron Bridge, Ironbridge, Shropshire, UK