Hydraulic power and Creek Road Bridge

 

I am continuing with these articles working down the Lewisham bank of Deptford Creek – it’s been a long way down and this is my 55^th article on the Creek.  I went all the way up the Greenwich bank as far as Lewisham Bridge and then I turned round and came down back towards the Thames on the west bank. It’s a long way with a lot of wharves but I have now just got back to Creek Road Bridge.  I did an article about that last May so perhaps it might be a good idea to write something about the bridge again for its anniversary.

Last week at the end of the article about wharves on the Creek near the bridge I said that on the 1890s insurance plan of the area there is a ‘hydraulic station LCC’ marked and I wondered what that was.  Over the past week I have spent a bit of time trying to find out and what has emerged has added a lot to the article I wrote on the bridge a year ago.  Which is good!! So – what have I learnt?

In the article I wrote last May I described how the bridge was built in 1815 ‘as a more permanent structure’ following an earlier footbridge which had replaced a ferry.  This bridge was privately owned by a company – who levied a toll on bridge users in order to pay for it - a common practice in those days.  Throughout the 1870s there were widespread and multiple calls for the bridge to be made toll free. I wrote how the tolls were abolished in 1880 when the bridge was taken over by the London-wide Metropolitan Board of Works and soon after was widened.  It was widened again in the early 20^th century so it could be used by the trams but it was eventually destroyed by bombing in the Second World War. The bridge which is here today was built after the war to replace it.    If I had thought about this for more than two seconds when I wrote it I might have questioned if the bridge which was used by 20^th Century traffic up until the 1940s was really the same one built in 1815 for foot traffic and maybe the occasional horse ad cart.

I began to ask about that ‘LCC hydraulic station’.  Perhaps I should explain about hydraulic power.  This was a system widely used in the London docks and wharves and elsewhere to work machinery with water under pressure.  Although there were many ‘stand alone’ systems there were also networks which were a bit like electricity generated in a central power station and then transmitted to customers through a network of pipes.  In London there was a big network run by the London Hydraulic Power Company with several big pumping stations including one in Wapping and another in Rotherhithe which is now flats.  As you go round streets, particularly in east London, you can see in the pavement metal plates with ‘LHP’ on them which  gave access to the pipe runs – and which today probably carry cables for various electronic systems.

So – ‘LCC hydraulic station’.  ‘LCC’ stands for ‘London County Council’ which replaced the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1889 – and they clearly managed the bridge.  I don’t know how the hydraulic power was supplied to Creek Road Bridge, but I would expect them to use the same system as was used at Tower Bridge which is around the same date, although built and owned by the City of London rather than the London County Council – and the City always take the posh option.

In order to get an answer to this I contracted Tim Smith – who knows all about hydraulic power in London. (See Tim R Smith A gazetteer of hydraulic power in London London's Industrial Archaeology No 19 2021).  Tim said he knew very little about Deptford Creek Bridge and had tried to find out in the past.  He sent me a copy of the notes he had on the bridge – and they told me a lot that I hadn’t managed to find in the various notes and histories of Creek Road Bridge.   They show that the bridge was not only widened under the Metropolitan Board of Works in the 1880s but that – crucially – the means of opening the central section to let boats through was changed.  They also show that while work was going on that a temporary timber footbridge was built over the Creek for people who wanted to cross.  The works sound much much more elaborate than just work on the superstructure, and Tim noted ‘old masonry of the eastern pier’ being removed and ‘new piers and abutments'. ‘new masonry for the western pier’. That sounds almost like a new bridge being built.

It appears that the original 1815 bridge had three spans - the central one of which could swing open horizontally to allow boats to go further up the Creek. However I don’t know how this section was got to move and if we think about what power might have been available to it in 1815 – well, it’s either horses or men doing the work.  Also this bridge allowed only 8 feet in width for the carriageway which meant it was effectively one way.  There were also two footways, each of 3 ft – which again is pretty narrow.

The new bridge had a centre span which could open vertically in two leaves … the lifting being effected by hydraulic machinery’. 

Interestingly Tim’s notes also show that the contractors working on the bridge were contacted by Dowells, the coal transhipment company which worked on several local wharves.   They offered to help with hydraulic power which they used on their Thameside wharves for unloading coal from ships.  They also had a special plant for making briquettes.   This offer unfortunately was made too late for it to be taken up.

The point is however that there is a difference to what that little building I spotted on the insurance plan would have been like if the bridge operation bought hydraulic power in from a network or if it had its own steam engine and plant to provide its own power.  What I don’t know is how often the bridge needed to be raised and how much power would be needed.  As we know the Creek has a huge tidal range and there are long periods when boats can’t be got up the Creek – so does that make a difference to the way power is used and raised?

A report says ‘there would be no opening ceremony it being considered too trifling a matter’. Members of the Greenwich Board of Works were not complimentary saying it was not something that the Metropolitan Board of Works needed to be proud of ‘... considering the amount of talent they had access to they could have done better.

This bridge does not seem to have lasted very long, since it seems it was rebuilt again between 1910 and 1913.  This was done under Maurice Fitzmaurice, the London County Council engineer and this design was to raise and lower the bascules by electricity. A motor was placed in the centre girder of each bascule and the system was operated from a cabin on the up-stream side of the bridge.

Following that the bridge was to last until it was finished off by Hitler.

So – this article is really to fill in a big gap in my previous article on the bridge.  It was indeed widened when the tolls were abolished in the 1880s but that widening was effectively a rebuild of the old bridge and brought it into an era of what was then new tech – even if Greenwich didn’t like it.  That new tech didn’t last long though and within twenty years was replaced by something even newer.

None of these changes seem to have been the cause of much public celebration – the big event had been in 1880 when the tolls were abolished  .. and it was ‘opened free to the public for ever’.  The bridge and its approaches were decorated with 7,000 flares and 650 flags - from Church Street, Greenwich, to Church street, Deptford was decorated with flags - as were vessels in the Creek ‘decked in holiday colours’  with ‘many of the tradesmen's shops lively with flags and evergreens’.  A procession of local politicians marched through the streets and at Creek Bridge were presented the key of the bridge which was ‘handed to Mr. Norfolk as representing the local authority’.  Hurrah!

And thanks to Tim for the info, and thanks to Bob for changing inappropriate words.