Tower Bridge was completed in 1894. After that, apart from the Millennium Bridge of 2001, no new bridges have been built over the Thames in the central London area, and only a few have been built further upstream. When looking back at what happened to the numerous Thames crossings in Greater London, we are more amazed by the longevity of Old London Bridge – the very first stone bridge – than we are by the much shorter lives of its followers. Bridge construction presents many difficult problems to the engineer, especially when crossing a fast-flowing river like the Thames. Even in modern times, mistakes are made: for instance, the famous wobble experienced on the Millennium Bridge by the crowds who walked across at its opening in 2001. Thus it is particularly impressive that Old London Bridge lasted over 600 years despite the much more primitive technology available in medieval times.
Many of the engineering considerations involved in bridge building are technical and of little interest to the layperson. However, it is worth mentioning some major decisions that had to be made in designing these London bridges. Choice of material has been important, but this has depended on the technical advances of the day. Roughly speaking, it is true that stone was used until the end of the eighteenth century, iron and, later, steel in the nineteenth century, and in the twentieth century there was increasing use of reinforced and pre-stressed concrete. In general, improved materials allowed longer spans to be designed. The longest spans are usually found in suspension bridges, the first of which in London was William Tierney Clark’s Hammersmith Bridge, completed in 1827, with a central span of 422 feet. One clear advantage of a longer span is that it enables river traffic to pass through more freely, but unfortunately, in the case of Hammersmith Bridge the road deck was slung so low that tall ships could only pass through at low tide. The benefit of a long span has to be weighed against the cost, as it is usually expensive to build. Design of the spans has to be considered along with the choice of the type of bridge (arch, beam, suspension, cantilever, cable stay, bascule and so on). All of these types are represented on the Thames. Brief descriptions of each type are contained in the appendix on Bridge Basics.
Perhaps the most crucial engineering decision was how to build the foundations of the bridge supports. Although the Thames is quite shallow at low tide, the difference in depth between low and high tide is about 21 feet at London Bridge and, as mentioned above, the ebb and flow of the tide can reach the considerable speed of 14 mph. The river-bed is mainly clay with variable coverings of gravel and sand. Clay is about the worst type of ground on which to build any foundations. It is estimated that it can bear about 40 times less weight than rock. Therefore it is essential to drive down deep into the river-bed to provide as firm foundations as possible for the bridge piers. This has been done by driving wooden piles into the river-bed for supports, as with Old London Bridge. For the longer spans of the later bridges, this method would not have provided a firm enough base. The two main techniques used were cofferdams and caissons. Cofferdams are made by driving wooden piles or, more recently, sheet steel, into the river-bed to form an enclosed space which can be pumped dry and filled with concrete or other strong material to provide the foundations on which to build the piers. A caisson is a sort of prefabricated cofferdam which has to be sunk into the river-bed either by dredging or excavation.
Once the bridge is completed it is subject to the problem of scour, whereby the flow of the water carries away material from the bridge supports over the years. As we will see, inadequate foundations have been the cause of the demise of many of London’s Thames bridges. With the greater understanding of these issues available to the builders of the replacement bridges, it is to be hoped that the current structures will prove more long-lasting.
Today, there are 18 road bridges, 9 rail bridges and 3 footbridges over the Thames between Richmond and the Tower of London (mainly in similar positions to the bridge landscape of 1900). In addition, there are 15 tunnels carrying foot passengers, road vehicle traffic or London Underground trains under the Thames in the Greater London area, although many of these are to the east of Tower Bridge. No other major city has so many river crossings. It seems that land traffic interests have now won a complete victory over the proponents of river traffic. Although this trend has gathered momentum since the eighteenth century, many people regret it has gone so far and that the Thames is so little used as a highway today.
Looking to the future, it is likely that most bridge-building activity will be to the east of Tower Bridge, as there are plans to expand housing and stimulate economic growth in these underdeveloped areas. Strategic proposals are being considered, including one for a crossing at Thamesmeade, but so far no decision has been made. The following chapters examine London’s river crossings, starting at the oldest existing bridge at Richmond in the west and working eastwards, ending at the most dramatic of all – Tower Bridge.
CHAPTER 1
Richmond and Twickenham
Of all the stately works of man that we can enjoy as we voyage up the river to Oxford, there are three that stand out from all the others. These are Windsor Castle, Hampton Court and Richmond Bridge. Built of white stone of five arches which increase in height and span to the centre arch and crowned with stone balustrades and supported by rounded buttresses, this bridge of 1780 [sic] is indeed a thing of beauty.
This quotation from an undated article by Mr Donald Maxwell1 encapsulates the sense of aesthetic pleasure experienced by all who see this elegant Palladian structure which spans the Thames in the beautiful setting of Richmond riverside. Although only the seventh bridge to be built on the lower reaches of the Thames, it is the oldest remaining structure, as all the other earlier ones have had to be replaced. Over the years, Richmond Bridge has proved inadequate to convey all the traffic requiring to cross the river in the area and has been supplemented by three further bridges, which are designed to be functional rather than beautiful. The first of these is the Richmond Railway Bridge, built in 1848. This was followed by the Richmond Footbridge, Lock and Weir in 1894 and the Twickenham Road Bridge in 1933. Each proved controversial at the time, but today they are accepted as essential to the local economy and the preservation of the environment.
Richmond Bridge
Richmond Bridge replaced a ferry which from medieval times had provided a crossing for horse-drawn vehicles and pedestrians at about the same location on the river. The first mention of the ferry dates from 1443, in the reign of Henry VI, but it was almost certainly in existence from the time of Edward III’s development of the Manor of Shene where he built himself a palace in the previous century. The ferry was always the property of the Crown and was leased to servants of the Crown or royal favourites to run it. Usage of the ferry will have increased considerably after Henry VII rebuilt the old palace, which was severely damaged by fire in 1499, and at the same time changed the name of the manor from Shene to Richmond, after his estates in Yorkshire. We even have fascinating records of his son Henry VIII’s expenses, which indicate that he regularly spent money on the ferry. One record for December 1537 reads: ‘Paid to Perkins of Richmond for the ferrying of the Princess and her servants arriving from Windsor – six shillings.’ As the ferry, though leased, belonged to the monarch, this seems an uncharacteristically just act by the old autocrat. The princess referred to was the future Elizabeth I when she was four years old. She herself will doubtless have used the ferry often, as Richmond was her favourite palace and it was there that she died in 1603. There is a sad parallel between the deaths at Richmond of Elizabeth I and Edward III. Both had their rings cut off their fingers – Edward’s by his thieving mistress, Alice Perrers, and Elizabeth’s so that it could be delivered into the hands of James VI of Scotland to ensure the succession.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Richmond developed into a thriving and fashionable town, although Henry VII’s magnificent palace became neglected and was pulled down. The area kept its royal connections, however, and was the favourite country resort of George II and Queen Caroline. The Q
ueen built the imposing terrace on Richmond Green known as Maids of Honour Row for her ladies-in-waiting. Sir Joshua Reynolds, first president and founder of the Royal Academy, and Johann Christian Bach, the composer, both lived here for some time. Richmond also became a favourite riverside destination for tourists from London as it could be reached by coach in less than three hours. Chalybeate springs were found on Richmond Hill and a spa was developed there. Unfortunately, it soon became too popular, especially with rowdy groups who did not confine themselves to imbibing the health-giving waters. Mrs Susanna Houblon, the daughter of the first governor of the Bank of England, lived nearby on Richmond Hill. She bought the main buildings in 1763 and closed down the spa, which had become a nuisance to the local inhabitants. In 1768, the Theatre Royal was built on Richmond Green, replacing an older theatre on Richmond Hill. It was opened by David Garrick and attracted some of the most famous actors of the day, including Edmund Keane and Sarah Siddons.
Whereas Richmond was in the county of Surrey, Twickenham on the opposite side of the river was in the county of Middlesex. The Middlesex bank was less developed, but much favoured by aristocrats, artists and writers. Alexander Pope was among the first to build himself a villa here, in 1719. Later, Henrietta Howard, the mistress of George II when he was Prince of Wales, built a Palladian villa at Marble Hill and Horace Walpole, author and son of Prime Minister Robert Walpole, designed the extraordinary Gothic villa at Strawberry Hill. Pope’s villa has long since vanished apart from the rather sad remnants of his famous grotto, but Marble Hill and Strawberry Hill still survive. Of the several artists who lived in Twickenham at this time, two were very much connected with the Thames and its bridges – Samuel Scott and his pupil William Marlow, who both painted central London river scenes in the style of Canaletto.
As a result of the developments here on both banks of the Thames, the need for a bridge to replace the ferry was becoming overwhelming. Horace Walpole records a number of occasions on which he had problems crossing the river by the ferry. Once, after dining in Richmond, he was forced to travel to Kew to cross back to Strawberry Hill via the new wooden bridge there because the river was too swollen for the Richmond ferry to operate. On another occasion, he did use the ferry but the darkness of the night, the rapidity of the current and the drunkenness of the bargemen nearly resulted in disaster. The first person to take action was none other than William Windham, to whom George II had granted the lease on the ferry until 1798. Windham had been the sub-tutor to the King’s younger son, the Duke of Cumberland, who became notorious as the ‘Butcher of Culloden’, as he massacred the defeated Jacobites at the end of the 1745 rebellion. Windham was also husband of one of the King’s former mistresses and therefore doubly qualified as a servant of the Crown. He had sub-let the ferry to Henry Holland and saw an opportunity to make a profit for himself by building a bridge to meet the increased demand for crossing the river. In 1772, he proposed a parliamentary Bill to allow the construction along the course of the ferry of a wooden bridge with nine arches, the design of which is still held in the British Museum.
The proposal caused uproar among the local inhabitants, which was typical of the many campaigns which have disturbed the apparent calm of Richmond’s riverside environment over the years. A group was set up to fight the proposal for a variety of reasons. The inhabitants were incensed that the profits would accrue to a single individual, William Windham, and exclude other potential investors; and they wanted the bridge to cross the river at Water Lane near the centre of the town, where the approach was much less steep than at Ferry Hill as proposed by Windham. However, their main fury was directed at the design of the bridge and its construction in wood. In a letter to the Lloyd’s Evening Post of 18 February 1772, an anonymous writer railed, ‘What a cat-stick building must this be … Methinks I heard Old Thames groan to be so vilely strode.’ William Windham seems to have buckled under this pressure, as he withdrew his Bill and left the field open for the inhabitants to put forward their alternative proposal, which formed the basis of the Act of Parliament which received Royal Assent on 1 July 1773.
The Act nominated 90 commissioners who were to be responsible for building and maintaining a bridge of stone construction. The commissioners included the landscape gardener Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown, the writer Horace Walpole, the actor David Garrick and Sir Charles Asgill, the local MP and a former Lord Mayor of London, who had recently presided over the removal of the houses from Old London Bridge. The Act also gave a number of key directions to the commissioners. Concerning finance, it was stipulated that no tax of any sort should be levied. The level of tolls was laid down, varying from two shillings and sixpence for a coach drawn by six horses to one halfpenny for a foot passenger, or one penny if pushing a wheelbarrow. Compared with the average wage of a skilled craftsman of about 12 shillings a week, the tolls seem high, but they were similar to the tolls charged for other contemporary bridges and the ferry it was about to replace. The ferry was to be shut down on the completion of the bridge, and Henry Holland received the generous compensation of £5,350. The Act also laid down the punishment for anyone convicted of damaging the bridge. Convicts were ‘liable for transportation to one of His Majesty’s colonies in America for seven years’. However, the colonies decided to declare independence in 1776, a year before the completion of the bridge, so this punishment could never be handed out. There is no record of what did happen to transgressors, although, of course, Australia quickly replaced America as the normal destination for convicts.
The most controversial stipulation of the Act was the definition of the location of the bridge, which was to be ‘at the Ferry or as much lower down the river as the Commission can settle’. As already stated, the inhabitants really wanted the bridge to be built at Water Lane so that access would be conveniently flat. The descent from Ferry Hill to the river was so steep that laden wagons were unable to use the ferry and had to cross further upstream via Kingston Bridge. The steepness of the incline had in fact created a business opportunity for a local woman who provided chairs for people to rest on midway up the slope. For this she was paid a few halfpence. Unfortunately, the land opposite Water Lane was owned by Henrietta, Duchess of Newcastle, the granddaughter of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, and she had made up her mind that she did not want the Middlesex bank approach road built anywhere near her country mansion. She proved a far more powerful and obdurate opponent than William Windham. In the end, the commissioners had to give way and agreed to start construction at the bottom of Ferry Hill, which is the site of Bridge Street today. The steepness of the slope did cause problems for users of the new bridge, and this was only alleviated in the nineteenth century, when the dip was filled in as much as possible so as to lessen the incline from 1 in 16 to 1 in 33.
Among the first decisions made by the commissioners was to choose to use Portland stone as the main construction material and to appoint James Paine as the architect, with Kenton Couse as his assistant. Strangely, there is no record of any competition for these appointments.
James Paine (1717–89)
Paine was the son of a carpenter from Andover. He trained as an architect in London, where he caught the attention of Lord Burlington, the leading proponent of the fashionable Palladian style of architecture. Burlington had built his famous Palladian villa at Chiswick, but had strong Yorkshire connections and had designed the Assembly Rooms at York. Most of Paine’s commissions were in the north of England, where he designed Doncaster Mansion House and worked on the restoration of many great country houses, often in conjunction with Capability Brown, who redesigned the landscapes. He also designed a few houses in London, including Dover House in Whitehall, now the home of the Scottish Office.
With Sir Robert Taylor, Paine was considered the leading Palladian architect following the death of William Kent. However, he had built only one bridge. This was at Shardlow over the River Trent in 1760. Couse does not appear to have had any experience with bridges and it is therefore remarkabl
e that their combined efforts should have stood the test of time so well. After completing Richmond Bridge, Paine did go on to design three further bridges over the Thames, the last of which was at Kew, which is covered in Chapter 2.
Construction was put out to tender and a contract was signed on 16 May 1774 for Thomas Kerr to build the bridge for the sum of £10,900. It was now time to raise the money to pay him and cover all the other expenses such as building the approaches and compensating local landowners. The method chosen was known as a ‘tontine’, named after Lorenzo Tonti who had originated the idea in France in the 1650s. The sum of £20,000 was raised by the sale of shares which paid an initial annual dividend of 4 per cent. As each investor died, his or her share was divided between the survivors until the last survivor received the whole of the dividend, amounting to £800 per annum. When there were no more survivors, dividends would cease. In order to avoid fraud, the investors had to sign an affidavit declaring that they were still alive before they could receive the dividend, which was paid biannually. The list of shareholders held in Richmond Local History Library contains an unusually large number of investments made in the name of children. It is not therefore so surprising that the last survivor did not die until 1859, at the age of 86, having received the maximum £800 for the last five years of her life. Her identity is not known although she will have been one of the 20 investors listed as still alive in the register of 1843. Richard Crisp relates an amusing story about one of the investors, an elderly lady:
[She] called on the paymaster, William Smith, for her biannual dividend and found it was the same as her previous one. She exclaimed in a discontented tone, ‘What, has no one died since I was last here – all still alive?’ But it was the last time she complained. When the dividends were next due, death had removed her, thus adding to the amount to be shared by those that survived her.2
Crossing the River: The History of London's Thames River Bridges From Richmond to the Tower Page 2
