It’s pretty, but it was built for purely practical reasons. This is an old towpath, and the bridge is designed in such a fashion that horses towing barges can switch sides without having to unhitch.
Why did you have to say that? Now my evening after work is gonna be spent looking at diagrams and videos of how this would work. I have no mental image of what a horse towing a barge would look like.
Well probably just kept an eye on it from the boat.
The real killer was when you approached a canal tunnel a few miles long with no side path. You’d send the horse on ahead to the exit of the tunnel with a rider, and then you and two of your besties would lay back against the top and sides of the boat with your feet against the tunnel arch and walk the boat through in pitch black darkness.
You’re looking for canal boats. Back in Ye Olden Days, waterways were the preferred method of transporting cargo because land movement took much more effort (and also frequently involved hills and such). If a large industry cropped up in a place where it wasn’t convenient or possible to recreate it elsewhere, and the landscape allowed it, they’d build a canal to allow easier shipping of larger amounts of material. They’d also sometimes build canals next to rivers, so that the water would be slower and it’d be easier for a boat to move both up- and down-stream. Think of places like the B&O Canal or the Erie Canal, or the Intercoastal Waterway.
It’s possible for someone to barge-pole a boat around a canal, but a more efficient method was to have a horse or mule harnessed to the boat, walking right next to the canal. They’d walk the canal-side towpath, pulling the boat, while the humans then only had to steer the mule and the boat.
What’s likely happening in this picture is that there’s a cliff or some other hazard that prevents the towpath from continuing on the right side of the canal. A bridge would be very convenient there anyway, to move the mule to the other side of the river, and if you’re building a custom bridge anyway, why not build it so that you don’t need to really disturb the team anyway, they can just keep going? It’s a really cool idea!
Back in Ye Olden Days, waterways were the preferred method of transporting cargo because land movement took much more effort (and also frequently involved hills and such).
And nowadays they’re parking lots of floating tiny-houses for people who can’t otherwise afford to live anywhere near London, apparently.
An awfully large number of things that are now considered ‘historical scenic attractions’ and ‘an integral part of the landscape’ were originally built entirely for practical purposes with almost no consideration for aesthetics. Especially bridges and other infrastructure. See also steam trains.
But you try and build new infrastructure and everyone wants to spend 3x the cost on architectural design, screening, or tunnel it underground entirely.
I beg to differ on the abject lack of aesthetic consideration. I’ve skimmed through old construction manuals and from even the surface it seems old masters of the building craft were obsessed with the blending of aesthetics and function
I think it was because the balance between materials and labor costs was different back then. If everything was being handmade by artisans anyway, why not let them make it look nice while they’re at it? Besides, without machine precision, ornamentation is probably quicker and easier than straight lines in a lot of cases.
(See also: traditional architectural styles vs. modernism.)
It’s pretty, but it was built for purely practical reasons. This is an old towpath, and the bridge is designed in such a fashion that horses towing barges can switch sides without having to unhitch.
There’s also a reasonable chance that the barges being towed were involved in the manufacture of jeans
Why did you have to say that? Now my evening after work is gonna be spent looking at diagrams and videos of how this would work. I have no mental image of what a horse towing a barge would look like.
Fun fact, an interest in canals is called “Gongoozling”
Surprisingly simple! I grew up near an old towpath that was converted into a hiking trail.
The rope configuration keeps it straight despite the horse being ‘off-center’.
Also, when horses weren’t available, people would pull the boats.
These are great! Thanks Pug!
I figured the rudder would also be used to keep the boat straight.
Did these guys really walk directly behind these horses? Do they die when the horse freaks out and kicks?
Well probably just kept an eye on it from the boat.
The real killer was when you approached a canal tunnel a few miles long with no side path. You’d send the horse on ahead to the exit of the tunnel with a rider, and then you and two of your besties would lay back against the top and sides of the boat with your feet against the tunnel arch and walk the boat through in pitch black darkness.
Yeah there was a post on Lemmy some time back about people doing this. You’d think they would keep a lantern handy for such an occasion though.
muchos gracias
You’re looking for canal boats. Back in Ye Olden Days, waterways were the preferred method of transporting cargo because land movement took much more effort (and also frequently involved hills and such). If a large industry cropped up in a place where it wasn’t convenient or possible to recreate it elsewhere, and the landscape allowed it, they’d build a canal to allow easier shipping of larger amounts of material. They’d also sometimes build canals next to rivers, so that the water would be slower and it’d be easier for a boat to move both up- and down-stream. Think of places like the B&O Canal or the Erie Canal, or the Intercoastal Waterway.
It’s possible for someone to barge-pole a boat around a canal, but a more efficient method was to have a horse or mule harnessed to the boat, walking right next to the canal. They’d walk the canal-side towpath, pulling the boat, while the humans then only had to steer the mule and the boat.
What’s likely happening in this picture is that there’s a cliff or some other hazard that prevents the towpath from continuing on the right side of the canal. A bridge would be very convenient there anyway, to move the mule to the other side of the river, and if you’re building a custom bridge anyway, why not build it so that you don’t need to really disturb the team anyway, they can just keep going? It’s a really cool idea!
A pair of horses or mules could move around 20-30tons of goods with a canal boat. The same pair would have a maximum load of 2-3 tons in a carriage.
Before trains, it was the most efficient way to move heavy loads over long distances.
What do they do when another boat is coming in the opposite direction?
Lift one boat’s rope over the other boat.
Wait for them to pass. These things move at like 3mph so you get plenty of warning
And nowadays they’re parking lots of floating tiny-houses for people who can’t otherwise afford to live anywhere near London, apparently.
And for storing old shopping trollies.
Oh, that’s clever!
An awfully large number of things that are now considered ‘historical scenic attractions’ and ‘an integral part of the landscape’ were originally built entirely for practical purposes with almost no consideration for aesthetics. Especially bridges and other infrastructure. See also steam trains.
But you try and build new infrastructure and everyone wants to spend 3x the cost on architectural design, screening, or tunnel it underground entirely.
I beg to differ on the abject lack of aesthetic consideration. I’ve skimmed through old construction manuals and from even the surface it seems old masters of the building craft were obsessed with the blending of aesthetics and function
Buildings yes.
I’m not so sure about infrastructure, especially things like steel girder bridges.
I think it was because the balance between materials and labor costs was different back then. If everything was being handmade by artisans anyway, why not let them make it look nice while they’re at it? Besides, without machine precision, ornamentation is probably quicker and easier than straight lines in a lot of cases.
(See also: traditional architectural styles vs. modernism.)