145 years since the Tay Bridge Disaster

[Towers]

Interestingly. I've been reading more about Thomas Bouch in "A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain", Volume 15 - North of Scotland. He was engineer to several of the early railway companies in Fife and Tayside. The problems they had with him were shocking - he appears to have been a lousy engineer who I wouldn't have trusted to design a toast rack!

I suppose one could argue that very few engineers had seen their work withstand the test of time back in those early days, and it was perhaps a case of some design theories proving more successful than others? That doesn’t excuse shoddy workmanship, of course!

 

[Strathclyder]

....plus Deepdale and Tees viaducts on the same line.

Ah of course. All three were the reason the line in question was subject to weight/speed restrictions in it's later years if I recall correctly? It's not my area of expertise at all, so am happy to be proven wrong if need be.

 

[Rescars]

....plus Deepdale and Tees viaducts on the same line.

IIRC he also created the first roll-on roll-off train ferry in the world.

 

[D6130]

IIRC he also created the first roll-on roll-off train ferry in the world.

Was that for the Granton-Burntisland connection prior to the construction of the Forth Bridge? Did he use the same system for Tayport-Broughty Ferry?

 

[Rescars]

Was that for the Granton-Burntisland connection prior to the construction of the Forth Bridge? Did he use the same system for Tayport-Broughty Ferry?

In response, (1) yes and (2) I think so, but others may know a lot more. Presumably the Forth ferries worked uninterrupted until the bridge was completed. Did the Tay ferries stop once Bouch's bridge was opened, only to be reinstated after the tragedy until the second bridge was completed?

 

[stuving]

Coincidentally, David Kirkaldy's Testing Works in Southwark is also celebrating its birthday (actually 150 years old last year). The Tay Bridge failure dramatically demonstrated the value of full-scale testing of actual iron and steel components, no matter how big. He was still rather an outsider when he controversially disagreed with the inquiry after testing recovered Tay Bridge parts, but in the end his independent test house business model was established.

I used to walk past his Testing Works going from Waterloo station to London Bridge (it's at 99 Southwark Street), 20 years ago when it was sitting empty. It has now reopened as a volunteer-run teaching centre for STEM, based on the fun kids get from breaking things. See Kirkaldy’s Testing Works.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Did the Tay ferries stop once Bouch's bridge was opened, only to be reinstated after the tragedy until the second bridge was completed?

Believe the "Fifies" (= Tay ferries) continued more or less uninterrupted until the Tay Road Bridge opened in August 1966.

 

[D6130]

Believe the "Fifies" (= Tay ferries) continued more or less uninterrupted until the Tay Road Bridge opened in August 1966.

Yes, but those were the passenger and car ferries to and from Dundee. We're talking about the train ferries between Tayport and Broughty Ferry. If you walk down to Broughty Castle you can still see some very corroded rails set into the adjacent slipway.

 

[Morayshire]

As far as I can recall from what I have read, they stopped when the first bridge was opened then were reinstated after the collapse until the current bridge was opened. Then the lines to both harbours were removed.

 

[matchmaker]

Bouchs last creation was the South Esk Viaduct at Montrose. It was inspected by Board of Trade inspector Colonel Yolland. Yolland, having been one of the three members of the inquiry board into the Tay Bridge disaster (the others being Rothery and Barlow) naturally now didn't trust anything designed by Bouch. He discovered that the viaduct was curved, not straight, and that several of the cast iron piers weren't even perpendicular. The viaduct was then put through several days of testing using both static and moving loads. At the end of the tests it had distorted so badly it had to be demolished!

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Reading 'The Drummond Brothers' by JE Chacksfield it appears that the Board of the NBR were prepared to back Bouch, and were not happy that Dugald Drummond (the NBR Locomotive Superintendent) gave evidence to the enquiry refuting Bouch's contention that the loco had derailed on the bridge, thus leading to disaster. DD apparently had a poor opinion of Bouch, and wouldn't have bothered hiding it (his tact function was disabled!). The NBR Board and DD never saw eye to eye afterwards.
Pat

 

[Strathclyder]

Yes, but those were the passenger and car ferries to and from Dundee. We're talking about the train ferries between Tayport and Broughty Ferry. If you walk down to Broughty Castle you can still see some very corroded rails set into the adjacent slipway.

Reading this post and a (admittedly rather pointless) question suddenly hit me: would No.224 and the grim remains of her train have been brought back onto dry land on a nearby rail-connected pier/jetty after being recovered from the riverbed (on the 3rd attempt for 224)?

Bouchs last creation was the South Esk Viaduct at Montrose. It was inspected by Board of Trade inspector Colonel Yolland. Yolland, having been one of the three members of the inquiry board into the Tay Bridge disaster (the others being Rothery and Barlow) naturally now didn't trust anything designed by Bouch. He discovered that the viaduct was curved, not straight, and that several of the cast iron piers weren't even perpendicular. The viaduct was then put through several days of testing using both static and moving loads. At the end of the tests it had distorted so badly it had to be demolished!

That had only been open for a few months by the time the Tay Bridge fell if I've got my dates right. With what you detailed there, it's frankly staggering, even by that era's standards, that it was passed as safe to use. Hardly surprising that it ended up being replaced.

Reading 'The Drummond Brothers' by JE Chacksfield it appears that the Board of the NBR were prepared to back Bouch, and were not happy that Dugald Drummond (the NBR Locomotive Superintendent) gave evidence to the enquiry refuting Bouch's contention that the loco had derailed on the bridge, thus leading to disaster. DD apparently had a poor opinion of Bouch, and wouldn't have bothered hiding it (his tact function was disabled!). The NBR Board and DD never saw eye to eye afterwards.
Pat

On the subject of Dugald Drummond, wasn't one of his locos (specifically a 88 Class 0-4-2T) scheduled to take the accident train as was routine, but it had failed and No.224 (a Thomas Wheatley design) was called in as cover? This in turn allowed Drummond to act as a independent witness in the disaster inquiry.

 

[ecmlthrash15]

queen victoria had ridden over the bridge a year before. Thomas Bouch was a very young engineer at just 26. He died not long after the disaster.
I rode over the bridge in 1991, trying to get a perspective of what it may have felt like.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

queen victoria had ridden over the bridge a year before. Thomas Bouch was a very young engineer at just 26. He died not long after the disaster.

Are you sure? Believe Bouch was in his mid 50s as at the date of the Tay Bridge disaster which occurred on the evening of Sunday 28th December 1879. Bouch died in Moffat on Saturday 30th October 1880. And Queen Victoria had travelled over the bridge not all that long before the disaster, on Friday 20th June 1879.

 

[ecmlthrash15]

sorry. sir thomas bouch was 58 when he died.

 

[Rescars]

Reading this post and a (admittedly rather pointless) question suddenly hit me: would No.224 and the grim remains of her train have been brought back onto dry land on a nearby rail-connected pier/jetty after being recovered from the riverbed (on the 3rd attempt for 224)?

I don't know for certain, but it seems likely. I think I read somewhere that 224 was towed back to the works on its own wheels. Others will no doubt know more about the condition of the carriages and if any of them were in sufficiently good condition to be salvaged for future use.

 

[Strathclyder]

I don't know for certain, but it seems likely. I think I read somewhere that 224 was towed back to the works on its own wheels.

Unless it was loaded onto a flatbad of some kind, I can't see any other way of getting it back to Glasgow. Wouldn't be surprised though if it was towed back at a snails pace for obvious reasons if it did happen.

Others will no doubt know more about the condition of the carriages and if any of them were in sufficiently good condition to be salvaged for future use.

The coaches were mostly smashed to pieces, the bodies being made out of wood as was the standard at the time. The train being 'caged' by the high girders as it fell made little difference, as the image attached below illustrates:

 

[181]

The coaches were mostly smashed to pieces, the bodies being made out of wood as was the standard at the time. The train being 'caged' by the high girders as it fell made little difference, as the image attached below illustrates:

They might have re-used the underframes, though?

 

[Strathclyder]

They might have re-used the underframes, though?

I don't doubt that. Even with the scale of the disaster and the loss of life in mind, it would've been far more cost effective to simply build new bodies on them (if the NBR had deemed it worthwhile re-using them at all of course).

 

[Rescars]

Unless it was loaded onto a flatbad of some kind, I can't see any other way of getting it back to Glasgow. Wouldn't be surprised though if it was towed back at a snails pace for obvious reasons if it did happen.

No 224 remained in traffic until 1919. It must have escaped from its submersion relatively lightly. Surely it would have been withdrawn much earlier if it had suffered significant damage.

 

[Strathclyder]

No 224 remained in traffic until 1919. It must have escaped from its submersion relatively lightly. Surely it would have been withdrawn much earlier if it had suffered significant damage.

True true. I was thinking less in terms of the damage sustained (having seen the pic of her after being fished out the Tay multiple times) and more in terms of braking though.

 

[Rescars]

True true. I was thinking less in terms of the damage sustained (having seen the pic of her after being fished out the Tay multiple times) and more in terms of braking though.

Good point. Several brake vans perhaps? Of course, back in the 1880's, your snail might well have given a regular heavy unfitted mineral train a fair challenge, especially on adverse gradients!

 

[AndrewE]

Unless it was loaded onto a flatbad of some kind, I can't see any other way of getting it back to Glasgow. Wouldn't be surprised though if it was towed back at a snails pace for obvious reasons if it did happen.


The coaches were mostly smashed to pieces, the bodies being made out of wood as was the standard at the time. The train being 'caged' by the high girders as it fell made little difference, as the image attached below illustrates:

View attachment 172916

I think there are some carriage parts in Dundee museum, maybe bits of the bridge too.

 

[Strathclyder]

Good point. Several brake vans perhaps? Of course, back in the 1880's, your snail might well have given a regular heavy unfitted mineral train a fair challenge, especially on adverse gradients!

That is a possibilty, yes. As much braking force as possible. Can't see it happening any other way.

I think there are some carriage parts in Dundee museum, maybe bits of the bridge too.

I believe that a Dundee museum does have a piece of metalwork from the bridge (if a pic on Wikipedia is to be believed); I didn't know about the surviving carriage parts tho. Something to investigate/look into next time I head out that way.

 

[stuving]

That had only been open for a few months by the time the Tay Bridge fell if I've got my dates right. With what you detailed there, it's frankly staggering, even by that era's standards, that it was passed as safe to use. Hardly surprising that it ended up being replaced.

The South Esk viaduct was inspected by Col. Yolland on 18th November 1880 as part of the section of line from Arbroath. NBR had announced the opening of the line, initially for goods only, for November, and goods traffic had just started running from Arbroath to Lunan Bay. I understand that this did not have to wait for the BoT inspection, so if anything NBR were slightly cautious in not going further. Of course the viaduct didn't pass inspection, so never opened in that form for any traffic.

 

[Strathclyder]

The South Esk viaduct was inspected by Col. Yolland on 18th November 1880 as part of the section of line from Arbroath. NBR had announced the opening of the line, initially for goods only, for November, and goods traffic had just started running from Arbroath to Lunan Bay. I understand that this did not have to wait for the BoT inspection, so if anything NBR were slightly cautious in not going further. Of course the viaduct didn't pass inspection, so never opened in that form for any traffic.

Ah gotcha. Thanks for the info.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Unless it was loaded onto a flatbad of some kind, I can't see any other way of getting it back to Glasgow. Wouldn't be surprised though if it was towed back at a snails pace for obvious reasons if it did happen.

I can't speak for Mr Wheatley's engines but Mr. Drummond's were famously robust. The engines in the Salisbury smash of 1906, were hauled back to Nine Elms (with temporary buffer beams, I believe). In fact Thomas Bouch seems to be the exception to the practice of making everything massive as calculations of material strength were probably a bit sketchy, at best.
Pat

 

[Mcr Warrior]

In fact Thomas Bouch seems to be the exception to the practice of making everything massive as calculations of material strength were probably a bit sketchy, at best.

Wasn't just about everything that was built after Bouch, massively over-engineered, just in case?

 

[D Williams]

Wasn't just about everything that was built after Bouch, massively over-engineered, just in case?

You have to bear in mind that structural engineering was in its infancy. There were no accepted standards for materials and the calculation of stress in a structure required an army of clerks, if indeed the forces involved could have been assessed in the first place. Cast iron had been seen as the answer to everything until bridges started to collapse. Had Bouch spent a little more time investigating wind speeds the bridge may have not collapsed so catastrophically but, given the poor standard of construction I doubt it would have lasted for many years. A fascinating period in which to study design techniques but sound practice was usually developed after initial failure. As the well worn joke goes "the difference between a doctor and a structural engineer is that a doctor only kills one person at a time".