1892 Castlefield Viaduct: Statement of Heritage Significance

1892 CASTLEFIELD VIADUCT STATEMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ISSUE 01 JUNE 2021

Mark Clifford On behalf of Purcell ® St James’, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ mark.clifford@purcelluk.com www.purcelluk.com All rights in this work are reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means (including without limitation by photocopying or placing on a website) without the prior permission in writing of Purcell except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Applications for permission to reproduce any part of this work should be addressed to Purcell at info@purcelluk.com.

Undertaking any unauthorised act in relation to this work may result in a civil claim for damages and/or criminal prosecution. Any materials used in this work which are subject to third party copyright have been reproduced under licence from the copyright owner except in the case of works of unknown authorship as defined by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Any person wishing to assert rights in relation to works which have been reproduced as works of unknown authorship should contact Purcell at info@purcelluk.com.

Purcell asserts its moral rights to be identified as the author of this work under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Purcell® is the trading name of Purcell Architecture Ltd. © Purcell 2021

241208

Issue 01 June 2021 The National Trust

1892 CASTLEFIELD VIADUCT: STATEMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

04

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT

07

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Authorship 1.2 Aim of this Report 1.3 Vision of the National Trust 1.4 Methodology 1.5 Existing information and sources 1.6 Management and Use

08 08 08 09 09 10 10

2.0 UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT 2.1 Location 2.2 Designations 2.3 Setting and Views 2.4 Site Description

11 11 12 13 20

3.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 3.1 Map Progression 3.2 Castlefield 3.3 Development of the 1892 viaduct 3.4 Contextual Analysis

22 23 29 34 45

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Archaeological Interest 4.3 Architectural and Artistic Interest 4.4 Historic Interest 4.5 People Value 4.6 Summary of Significance

53 53 54 55 56 57 59

5.0 CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

62

BIBLIOGRAPHY 64

APPENDIX A: PLANNING SERVICE ADVICE 65 APPENDIX B: LIST DESCRIPTION OF THE 1893 VIADUCT 68 APPENDIX C: LIST DESCRIPTIONS 69 APPENDIX D: GAZETTEER 73 APPENDIX E: 1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES 92 APPENDIX F: MANCHESTER COURIER AND LANCASHIRE GENERAL ADVERTISER - SATURDAY 6 MAY 1893 110 APPENDIX G: THE SURVEY RESPONSES 113

APPENDICES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In many ways, Castlefield is the heart of Manchester and, for a time, was also the beating heart of the industrialising world. This pivotal role began with the establishment of the Roman fort of Mamucium in 79AD. It rose to prominence once again in the 18th century, with the construction of the Bridgewater Canal (1763), the first great achievement of the canal age and the Industrial Revolution, followed by the structures of the ‘Railway Mania’ that criss-crossed the basin, enabling international trade. Over a hundred years of innovation, prosperity, engineering marvels and commercial success are visible at this confluence of transport infrastructure, offering a tangible reminder of Manchester’s position as a global force in the 19th century.

Railway Mania began with the Liverpool & Manchester Railway in 1830. By 1845 over 35 new railway lines have been constructed in Britain and in 1846 the Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway was built in Castlefield, followed by the first Cheshire Lines Committee railway and 1873 viaduct. The 1892 viaduct was the second to be built by the Cheshire Lines Committee in Castlefield, expanding on their existing lines from Central Station to Salford Quays.

From atop the viaduct, one gains an impression of the grandeur, affluence and power the Cheshire Line Committee and citizens of Manchester were keen to promote. One has a birds-eye view of unrestrained growth from the 18th century onwards. Robust structures of the Victorian age, such as Manchester Town Hall and Manchester Central vie for prominence with glazed 21st century skyscrapers and squat apartment blocks. The rhythmic sound of trains thundering past reminds the viewer of the original purpose of the viaduct and how it once contributed to this metropolis, although now unused, serving a monumental role as a reminder

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

of former power. The length of the viaduct (370 yards over 56 arches), with its repetitive latticework and bracing, combined with the self-seeding brambles, weeds and briars that are steadily reclaiming the structure, brings a sense of awe to the visitor.

Returning to the ground, the character changes immediately to a more enclosed and intimate setting, although there is nothing domestic or comfortable about it. The built environment beneath the viaduct is one of contrasts, with the monumental cast-iron columns and fish-bellied track looming over the more humanscale waterways and boats of the earlier canal. The grit, grime and decay often associated with historic industrial structures is one characteristic of the space, although the quiet cobbled streets and reflections in the water also provide a sense of tranquillity that is not found elsewhere in the city. There is much to recommend this area to a wider audience.

The 1892 Castlefield Viaduct has an iconic status as a landmark structure in a city already saturated with industrial heritage. It is instantly recognisable in the fictitious city of Motostoke in the 2019 Pokémon games, where its monumental scale dominates its surroundings. The viaduct has an architectural honesty and functionality, with its materials and construction loudly proclaiming its use. It epitomises many of the features of the late Victorian period, it is striking, self-confident and dominant. Innovative engineering solutions were proudly displayed and the CLC could not help embellishing their structure with architectural detailing typical of the High Victorian period.

The adjacent Merchant’s Bridge (1995) offers pedestrians a place to view this collision of infrastructure, with water below and rail above, surrounded by its historic industrial setting of warehouses, roads and docks. Gazing up at the three viaducts above, the visitor can read the evolution of Manchester in their successive fabric.

The early and diminutive scale of the red brick and cast-iron Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway viaduct (1849) speaks of a time before mass production and transportation.

Next, the CLC Cornbrook Viaduct (1877), with its wrought-iron lattice girders, illustrates a transitional period between the use of traditional materials and innovative feats of engineering, sometimes with less-than-ideal results. Finally, the 1892 CLC Castlefield Viaduct, represents a cumulation of Victorian confidence and prowess at the pinnacle of the Railway Age, with an early use of carbon steel and architectural embellishment that proclaims its importance.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 04

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1892 viaduct is an early example of latticed-girder bridge construction, with only circa 30 earlier examples known to have been constructed in the UK. This made use of typical construction methods of the time, which involved riveting pre-fabricated metal trusses together, but allowed stronger and lighter structures to be built more quickly. Well-established materials were used for the brick arches (including the stronger, blue engineering bricks) and cast-iron columns working under compression. What was innovative about the 1892 viaduct (in comparison to its earlier 1873 sister) was the very early use of carbon steel for the girders.

The Forth Rail Bridge of 1882-1890 was the first major structure in the world to be constructed in steel and the use of steel less than a decade later by CLC puts their engineers at the forefront of technology.

Beyond its physical presence, the viaduct continues to tell us much about past human experiences, activity and values. The archival collection of Network Rail offers fascinating insight into the construction of the structure and there is much more to be learned from an engineering perspective. We know about the company who commissioned the viaduct, CLC, their chief engineer, W.G. Scott and the manufacturers Heenan & Froude and M.W. Walmsley & Co. The lives of those who helped turn the blueprints into reality are more opaque. Who were they? How did they live and what motivated them? There is much to be learnt by researching and telling their stories.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

Overall, the Castlefield area has long represented the innovative, industrial heart of Manchester and is, if not unique in its individual components, certainly of the highest heritage interest for its significance as a group and the contribution it makes to our understanding of Manchester at the heart of global industrialisation.

From the 1830s railway station to the 20th century Metrolink, each piece of infrastructure contributes to this story, as well as having its own story to tell. The CLC railway has national interest for connecting north-west industrial towns, and by extension, the wider British empire. The 1892 and 1873 viaducts are an important part of this story and illustrate how quickly technology was developing at the time. It is interesting to note that reliance on new technologies was not always beneficial, as the carbon steel of the 1892 viaduct has fared much worse than the earlier cast iron on the 1873 viaduct due to corrosion. In 2021, the condition of the 1892 viaduct has deteriorated. There is great potential for imaginative new proposals to be put forward that would restore the structure to a beneficial new use and return it to its former glory.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 05

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

APPENDICES

KEY FACTS:

The Cheshire Line Committee Railway, including the Castlefield Viaduct, carried over 11 million passengers and 8.5 million tons of goods each year by 1939.

The CLC Manchester to Liverpool Express took 45 minutes for the 34-mile route, compared to times of between 40 minutes to over an hour by other operators.

The trains averaged a speed of 51.5 mph and became known as ‘the punctual route’.

In 1887, the CLC average construction cost per mile of track was £88,000, and, with the exception of the London Metropolitan line, was the most expensive per mile in the country.

The 1892 viaduct is an early example of the use of carbon steel in bridge construction, replacing cast and wrought iron. The Forth Rail Bridge of 1882-1890 was the ‘world’s first major steel structure’, and the 1892 viaduct was built only a few years later.

The 1892 viaduct was designed by the Chief Engineer of CLC, William George Scott.

It was manufactured and constructed by Heenan & Froude and M.W. Walmsley & Co. Heenan & Froude were also responsible for Blackpool Tower the same year, constructed with rivetted carbon steel girders.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

The total weight of the steel and iron used in the construction of the viaduct is over 7000 tons.

The drum columns are cast-iron and the lattice girders are carbon steel. It also required 6 million rivets and 14,000 cubic feet of concrete.

It was completed at a cost of £250,000 (about £20.5 million in today’s money).

The viaduct sits within a dense landscape of heritage designations including seven listed buildings and one Scheduling. Transport infrastructure includes four railway lines, two canals, two main roads and the site is adjacent to four stations (two disused).

Locally, the viaduct is seen as a positive asset that is linked to the development of the national rail network across the UK and is a strong visual representation of Castlefield’s history.

“This splendid example of fine engineering symbolises Manchester’s resilience, growth and progress on all fronts.

It’s one of the sleeping giants that linked key markets.”

“It is perhaps the epitome of the Manchester industrial spirit and heritage in this great city and as such, of global significance.”

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 06

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

Facilities at Oxford Road Station, Manchester soon proved inadequate for the growing transport requirements and a new station was built. Designed by Sir John Fowler, Central Station (now the Central Convention Centre or GMEX) was opened in 1880 by the CLC. The building has a distinctive arched roof with a 64-metre span, the second-largest railway station roof span in the United Kingdom16, and was granted grade II* listed building status in 1963.

Central Station became one of the busiest stations in the country, in 1905 it had more than double Euston and St Pancreas’ passenger numbers.17

APPENDICES

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT This Statement of Heritage Significance has been designed as a smart

The CLC high overheads as they not own any it locomotives PDF,had allowing the reader todid interact with as you would a website. instead renting them from other companies but made comfortable profits of £21,000 in 1874, £145,000 in 1886, £218,000 in 1908 with a gradual decline from 1925 and a loss of £41,000 in 1932.

Navigation

12

Ibid

13

Griffiths, R.P. buttons (1978) The Cheshire Linesbottom Railway.

The along the

14 15 16 17

at r, large Cheshire nerated coal and verpool

Central Station c.1900

of each page allow you to Dyckhott, N. (1984) The Chesire Lines Committee: Then and Now. jump to a specific section. Once you’ve clicked on a section, Dyckhott, N. (1999) Portrait of the Cheshire Lines Committee. it will turn bold so you know which section you are in.

Manchester Central Station (G-MEX) roof, Engineering Timelines, http://www.

Plans

CASTLEFIELD VIADUCT: STATEMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE When you see this icon, the plan is interactive CONTENTS and components are hyperlinked.

Accessibility The colours used in this EXECUTIVE SUMMARY document are accessible for some people with colour HOW blindness.

TO USE THIS DOCUMENT

You can return to the page you were previously on by clicking the back button in the top right hand BIBLIOGRAPHY SIGNIFICANCE 49 corner of the page.

Introduction 49

4.0 4.1 4.2 Archaeological Interest engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=603 4.3 Architectural and Artistic Interest 07 Ibid 4.4 Historic Interest HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Understanding 3.0 Historic Background 4.0 Significance 5.0 Capacity for Change 6.0 Conservation Appendices 4.5 Framework People Value 4.6 Summary of Significance 1.0 INTRODUCTION 08 35 Authorship 08 A1.1number of guidance 1.2 Aim of this Report 08 documents referred to in 3.3.3 THE 1892 VIADUCT1.3 5.0 CAPACITY FOR CHANGE Vision of the National Trust 09 You can also use the buttons in the top right hand corner to viaduct line was part the text can clicked onto The 1892 frombe Central Station 1.4of a route Methodology 09 Goods Station and the docks atdetail. the Port Anything of Manchesterunderlined jump to the contents, appendices, or back to the pageCornbrook you for 1.5further Existing information and sources 10 (now Salford Quays) to assist the contractor in the supply of were previously on. in black will take you to 21Management 6.0 CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK 1.6 and Useantheexternal website.

10 material for the dock’s construction . Dyckhott (1999) suggests 6.1 Introduction line was intended as ‘temporary’ and was built on wooden trestles but remained in use after the opening of the docks in 189422. No 6.2 Condition and Maintenance source is given by Dyckhott (1999) for the temporary nature of the 6.3 Health and Safety 2.0 UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING route and it seems somewhat at odds with the monumental design 6.4 Statutory Controls AND CONTEXT 11 of the viaduct.

APPENDICES 6.5 Access 2.1 Location 11 A series of detailed engineering for the viaduct survive 6.6 Interpretation 2.2drawings Designations 12 within Network Rail’s archives2.3 dated Setting March 1890 byViews the CLC’s 6.7 Setting and key views and The contents page allows users to navigate directly to the12 Chief Engineer G.W. Scott (appendix D). The contractors are listed 2.4 Site Description 20 required section by clicking on the section heading.

04

Weblinks

Contents

as Heenan and Froude and M.W. Walmsley and Co. The designs show the viaduct as extant today with the only exception being the and Manchester provided plenty of traffic and the line between overhead bracing being latticed. Rusted fragments of metal found in the undergrowth of the viaduct are likely toBACKGROUND relate to this 3.0 deck HISTORIC Liverpool and Manchester carried considerable goods traffic. At original bracing. The date of the current bracing and why it was 3.1 Map Progression the Manchester end Britain’s first and largest industrial estate at replaced is not clear, aerial photographs of 1938 show the viaduct 3.2 Castlefield but the image quality does not allow the bracing to be identified.

Trafford Park contained a great range of manufacturing industries.

3.3 Development ofsusceptible the 1893 viaduct Jacobs (2010) suggests the latticework would have been Nearby the CWS built a large soap factory served by the CLC and 3.4exhausts National to blast damage by locomotive and thisand mayInternational explain why Context in 1922 an oil refinery opened at Stanlow on the south bank of the they were replaced with solid web sections also suggesting they Manchester Ship Canal. probably date from the early 1950s23.

50 51 APPENDIX A: PLANNIN 52 APPENDICES APPENDIX B: LIST DESC 53 APPENDIX C: LIST DESC 55 APPENDIX D: GAZETTE APPENDIX E: 1890 ENGI VIADUCT FROM THE N APPENDIX F: MANCHES 58 GENERAL ADVERTISER APPENDIX G: THE SURV 60 60 60 61 62 63 64 65

22 23 29 35 445

A plan of the proposed Manchester Docks in 1893 Click on the diagram for a full-size view

1.0 Introduction

21

22 2.0 Understanding 23

Dyckhott, N. (1999) Portrait of the Cheshire Lines Committee.

Ibid

3.0 Historic Background

Jacobs (2010) Castlefield North Viaduct, Manchester BRIDGE REF: MAJ/289 Assessment of Principal Structural Members.

4.0 Significance 07

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

APPENDICES

1.1 AUTHORSHIP This document has been prepared by Purcell, a firm of conservation architects and heritage consultants, specialising in the conservation of the historic environment. Specifically, it has been prepared by Mark Clifford (Bsc. (Hons), MA, IHBC), Senior Heritage Consultant, Purcell and Rebecca Burrows (BA. (Hons), MSc, IHBC, AssocRTPI) Associate, Purcell on behalf of the National Trust. An archaeological gazetteer was produced by Chris Wilde of the University of Salford and technical notes on the structure’s construction have been provided by Greg Hardie of Arup.

1.2 AIM OF THIS REPORT This document is a strategic document, intended to guide the future development and conservation of a heritage asset by setting out a framework for its management, maintenance and safeguarding, based on a foundation understanding of its history, significance and the issues it faces.

This document has been commissioned by the National Trust for the 1892 Castlefield Viaduct to inform potential future uses for the site. It highlights those areas requiring attention and is completed by a conservation framework of policies, to inform the future management of change.

THE PROCESS

Discuss with you your goals and aims

Build a true and clear understanding of place

Establish what is important and where change is possible

Provide clear, concise and adaptable advice

The report draws on other best practice guidance documents from Historic England such as Conservation Principles (2008) and Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 - The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017) whilst complying with the tests and requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), specifically paragraphs 189 and 190, under which a description of the significance of a site, including any contribution made by their setting, must be provided to support any planning applications.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Involve, evolve and inform

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 08

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

INTRODUCTION

APPENDICES

The assessment follows the staged approach to decision-making set out within Historic England Advice Note 12 - Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets (2019): 01 Understand the form, materials and history of the affected heritage asset(s), and/or the nature and extent of archaeological deposits 02 Understand the significance of the asset(s) 03 Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance 04 Avoid, minimise and mitigate negative impact, in a way that meets the objectives of the NPPF

The National Trust are currently undertaking feasibility work in order to plan for the reimagining of the viaduct as an elevated urban park and linked active travel hub. Development and delivery of the park will follow two stages - the first a ‘micro’ park on a small section of the viaduct to test and pilot ideas followed by full design of the main scheme drawing on lessons learned.

The National Trust’s conservation principles are the following – •

Principle 1: Significance We will ensure that all decisions are informed by an appropriate level of understanding of the significance and ‘spirit of place’ of each of our properties, and why we and others value them.

1.4 METHODOLOGY The National Trust shall be established for the purpose of promoting the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands and tenements (including buildings) of beauty or historic interest and as regards lands for the preservation (so far as is practicable) of their natural aspect, features and animal and plant life.

•

Principle 2: Integration We will take an integrated approach to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage, reconciling the full spectrum of interests involved.

•

Principle 3: Change We will anticipate and work with change that affects our conservation interests, embracing, accommodating or adapting where appropriate, and mitigating, preventing or opposing where there is a potential adverse impact.

•

Principle 4: Access and engagement We will conserve natural and cultural heritage to enable sustainable access and engagement for the benefit of society, gaining the support of the widest range of people by promoting understanding, enjoyment and participation in our work.

•

Principle 5: Skills and partnership We will develop our skills and experience in partnership with others to promote and improve the conservation of natural and cultural heritage now and for the future.

•

Principle 6: Accountability We will be transparent and accountable by recording our decisions and sharing knowledge to enable the best conservation decisions to be taken both today and by future generations.01

01

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/our-conservation-principles

- Section 4.1 National Trust Act, 1907 05 Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance 1.3 VISION OF THE NATIONAL TRUST The National Trust was born of a desire to protect the elements of environment that people value. Since its foundation in 1895 they have been caring for places of historic interest or natural beauty.

The fundamental purpose – to promote the long-term care of places of historic interest and natural beauty for the benefit of the nation – is set out in the National Trust Act of 1907.

The project vision is to reimagine the viaduct as an iconic urban park destination providing nature and greenspace amenity for the local community and attracting visitors from further afield, all whilst respecting the heritage fabric of the listed structure, complementing existing plans and initiatives in the city and supporting active travel across a wider network.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

This report will contribute to the successful future management and use of the viaduct. It can be used to provide baseline information that contributes to an overall understanding of the place, as well as highlighting areas that could be improved; not only as part of the forthcoming works but as part of longer term future management. It can be converted into a conservation plan for the site and is intended to be updatable and will be used to inform a heritage impact assessment as proposals are developed.

The report analyses the historic development of the site, its setting, context, management, use and what makes it important: its heritage value or significance. This overall understanding of the site provides evidence and helps set precedents for the future management, maintenance and development of the viaduct, helping to ensure that the overall vision for the site is fully understood, appreciated and maintained by all stakeholders.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 09

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

INTRODUCTION

APPENDICES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This provides an overview of the document; including overarching aims and conclusions.

01 INTRODUCTION

This section sets out the basic information regarding the background to the report, such as the scope of the study, existing information and methodology.

02 UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

This section provides an understanding of the viaduct by setting out the known information about the site. This includes a summary of the statutory designations and legislative frameworks that relate to the site and a description of the site.

03 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

This section provides a more detailed understanding of the building through the chronology and interpretation of the history of the site.

04 SIGNIFICANCE

This section sets out why and to what extent the site is important and valued, both culturally and with regards to its heritage. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines significance as ‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest’. Such interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic’ and it may derive ‘not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting’. Significance is what conservation sustains, and where appropriate enhances, in managing change to heritage assets.

The Science and Industry Museum (SIM) and the National Railway Museum (NRM) were both approached for archive information, but both held no records relating to this structure. Archive documents were viewed at the Manchester Central Library and drawings have been provided by the Network Rail archive. The historic newspaper catalogue, aerial photography and historic cartographic sources were also consulted.

05 CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

This section will identify the high-level conservation and design parameters for the viaduct to inform future develop, based on an understanding of the site, its history and significance.

APPENDICES

The Appendices comprise further information which is relevant to the report but not necessary for inclusion in the main text. This includes a bibliography of published and unpublished sources which have been consulted in the preparation of this document.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

1.5 EXISTING INFORMATION AND SOURCES A literature review has been undertaken researching relative material relating to the Cheshire Lines Committee (CLC) principally ‘The Cheshire Lines Railway’ by R.P. Griffiths (1978), ‘The Chesire Lines Committee: Then and Now’ by Nigel Dyckhott (1984) and ‘Portrait of the Cheshire Lines Committee’ by Nigel Dyckhott (1999).

POTENTIAL FURTHER RESEARCH The Cheshire Record Office holds a series of records and plans relating to the CLC (Reference - D 4883) which were not accessed as they were not deemed immediately relevant to the viaduct. The records and minutes of the CLC and their constituent companies may also hold further information on the viaduct, these will be held across various archives with some at the National Archives.

Records relating to the manufacturer Heenan and Froude are held at Worcester archives (reference: 705:411). They were not accessed due to the time constraints and scope of this report but may warrant further research in the future. It is also highlighted later in this report that relatively little information is known about the workers who built and used the structure and further volunteer led research in this area is recommended for when the viaduct is interpreted.

1.6 MANAGEMENT AND USE The viaduct is currently not in use. There are some signs of woody vegetation growth on the track bed but it appears it is being managed and maintained to some extent. The viaduct is owned by the Department for Transport and managed by Highways England.

4.0 Significance 10

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SECTION 2.0 UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

L RO AD

ATE

P OO

DE A

LIV E R

N SG

2.1 LOCATION The 1892 Castlefield Viaduct01 sits across Castlefield Basin which is just to the south of Manchester City Centre. The structure meets the carpark of Deansgate Metrolink station to the east and runs linear to the Metrolink line running towards Cornbrook, it crosses over the canal and various other rail viaducts below. At lower level the viaduct is supported on a series of columns that both sit within the canal and around it. The extent of the listing (as defined by an email from John Whyard, Manchester City Council, Urban Design & Conservation Team see appendix A) extends past Deansgate car park to the convention centre, however, this is outside the scope of this report.

APPENDICES

EG N TO ER ST

A 56

RE ET

N

The location of the viaduct (© GoogleEarth 2021) Click on the viaduct to find it on Google Maps.

01

A date stone on the bridge over Egerton Street dates the line to 1892 and the viaduct is therefore referred to by this date, however, it was load tested and opened in 1893.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 11

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

2.2 DESIGNATIONS The structure itself is grade II listed and sits within the Castlefield Conservation Area with the conservation area boundaries extending a further 200m south of the viaduct towards the ring road and a further 600m north past the Science and Industry Museum, the western boundary is defined by the River Irwell and to east the boundary runs along Deansgate. The viaduct is listed as CASTLEFIELD RAILWAY VIADUCT FROM G-MEX TO DAWSON STREET (see appendix B). There are several other designations in the immediate vicinity listed below and shown on the plan opposite with their list descriptions included as appendix C.

APPENDICES

03 02 01 06

The listing description provides a basic description of key features:

08

“Railway viaduct. c.1880. Cost iron and wrought iron (?);redbrick to east of Duke Street. Runs south-west from former Central Station, then westwards, dividing into two over Castlefield and re-joining west of River Medlock. Cost iron drum piers rising to square castellated towers supporting metal lattice parapet. Castellated brick piers with stone dressings to Gothic style skew bridges over River Medlock and roadways. To east of Duke Street viaduct is of brick with segmental arches and castellated brick piers. At western end a blue brick bridge over Dowson Street.”02 The 1892 viaduct is within the Castlefield Conservation Area, designated on 13 October 1979. The Conservation Area Appraisal notes that there is great opportunity for improvement and enhancement, “as Castlefield has always been a centre of innovation, imaginative new proposals for development [and] are likely to receive a warm welcome.”03

02

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1292315

03

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/info/511/conservation_areas/972/ castlefield_conservation_area/7

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

07

04 05

The location of nearby designated assets © GoogleEarth 2021

01 Castlefield Railway Viaduct from G-Mex to Dawson Street: Grade: II 02 The Giants Basin: Grade: II 03 Pair Of Culvert Arches Over River Medlock And Associated Overflow Channel: Grade: II 04 Rochdale Canal Lock Number 92 And Castle Street Bridge: Grade: II

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 12

05 06 07 08

Merchants Warehouse: Grade II Bridgewater Canal Basin At Potato Wharf: Grade: II Remains Of Eastern Wall Of The Roman Fort: Scheduled Manchester South Junction and Altrincham N Railway Viaduct: Grade: II

This plan is not to scale

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

2.3 SETTING AND VIEWS 2.3.1 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT The NPPF details the requirement to describe the significance of any heritage assets including any contribution made by their setting.

‘Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset and may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.04’ Originally produced in 2011 by Historic England, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice In Planning, Note 3: The Setting Of Heritage Assets (Second Edition) (2017), has been revised to reflect changes resulting from the NPPF and now takes the form of a Good Practice Advice note (GPA 3). The document sets out how the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence and historic fabric but also from its setting – the surroundings in which it is experienced. The careful management of change within the surroundings of heritage assets therefore makes an important contribution to the quality of the places in which we live.

04

APPENDICES

2.3.2 SETTING The viaduct sits on the outskirts of Manchester City Centre and central to the Castlefield Conservation Area. Deansgate, one of the main routes through Manchester, lies approximately 100m from the eastern edge of the viaduct with the secondary road Liverpool Road approximately 100m to the north.

LOWER LEVEL Adjacent to the viaduct to the north is a small urban park, formed around the remains of the Roman Fort which was reconstructed in several areas in 1982. Within the park, next to the blue brick arch of the viaduct, is a late 20th century stair and lift tower allowing access to the upper level. Along Duke Street the cobbled road passes under an earlier brick-built rail viaduct (1843) and the road follows the line of the 1892 viaduct directly beneath it. Off Duke Street and north of the viaduct is an open area of land bordered by the canal, known as the Castlefield Bowl which is a popular events and music venue. At Castlefield Bowl, the viaduct passes over the canal basin with several of its columns sitting directly in the canal.

At the junction between Castle Street and Duke Street, a second

viaduct (1873) runs within meters of the 1892 viaduct, this viaduct of a similar design is of red brick with lattice metalwork at track level. Continuing along Castle Street the road crosses a stone bridge and lock over the Rochdale Canal leading to a series of former canal warehouses now converted to bars and restaurants.

Views of the viaduct are limited from this location due to the other viaducts blocking the view.

At ground level the setting retains much of its historic industrial character with traditional stone, brick and iron structures criss-crossing the area at ground and high level. The density of structures gives a sense of industry and busyness, although today’s leisure uses of the bars and canals make it difficult to imagine the noise and grime that would have characterised the area in the 19th century. The immediate setting remains relatively quiet with little pedestrian or vehicle movement and due to the abundance of viaducts overhead it becomes almost an enclosed space. There is a regular rumble of trains overhead on adjacent viaducts creating a regular rhythm that can almost be felt as vibrations.

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2019). National Planning Policy Framework. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, p. 71.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 13

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

The viaduct at lower level from near Duke Street

APPENDICES

The viaduct from the Roman fort

Beneath the viaduct on Duke Street

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 14

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

HIGH LEVEL The viaduct is accessed from a car park built on what would have been part of the route leading to Central Station (now the convention centre). This car park has staircase and lift access and continuing c.100m east leads to the Deansgate Metrolink stop. At the car park entrance to the viaduct (east end) the height of the viaduct affords views across much of Castlefield and Manchester with views as far as Manchester Town Hall and Cathedral.

Continuing along the viaduct westwards views north become more limited as a series of late 20 th / early 21st century apartment blocks are built close to the viaduct, most with their rear elevations

APPENDICES

facing the structure. When looking south the view is again partially blocked by the Metrolink line viaduct, although there are partial views towards the canal warehouses to the south.

The experience when on the viaduct is primarily industrial due to trains running past on adjacent lines which rumble past at frequent intervals. Views from the viaduct extend for several miles across the city with modern tall buildings dominanting much of the skyline in contrast with the former industrial nature of the site when glimpsed through the latticework sides.

The view looking south from the viaduct across the canal basin

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

The view looking north from the viaduct

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 15

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

APPENDICES

2.3.3 THE EXTENT OF SETTING Setting is defined as the surroundings within which the viaduct is experienced and need not be a visual connection. There are currently three main components to the setting of the 1892 viaduct, although this may change as the built environment evolves and our understanding of it changes: Firstly, there is the setting of the viaduct within its historic industrial surroundings, which includes Central Station, Liverpool Road Station, the other viaducts, canals and warehouses. This group is immediately adjacent to the viaduct but also extends beyond what is visible towards important structures that add to our understanding of the viaduct. This industrial character and setting is of the highest importance.

Secondly, the immediate setting of the viaduct is important, as this allows the visitor to appreciate the sheer scale and proximity of the viaduct from below. This also includes the dynamic experience people have of traveling towards and past the viaduct on national rail or the Metrolink, appreciating the site as originally intended.

Thirdly, and to a lesser extent, are longer distance views towards the viaduct from elsewhere in the city. The visibility of the viaduct is restricted due to other high-level structures but can be seen from the ring road (Egerton Street) and glimpsed from other areas such as the Deansgate metrolink station. Conversely, views from the viaduct across the city are arguably also part of its setting.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

The view looking south as a train passes below

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 16

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

2.3.4 KEY VIEWS Views of the viaduct from south to north are limited due to earlier railway structures almost completely obscuring the 1892 viaduct.

Where access is available, views on the viaduct itself are impressive due to its scale in both length and width. However, the viaduct is also viewed from the lower level with the key views those from the urban park towards the structure, on Duke Street passing beneath and near Bar Ca looking along the structure crossing the canal.

Each of these views gives a scene of the scale of the structure.

Other views not shown include the dynamic moving views of the structure when approaching the city by train or Metrolink and views outwards from the structure over the canal and along the evolving city skyline.

APPENDICES

W LO U PPE R L

E VE L

04 L VE LE LOWER

03

ER

LE

L VE 01

02 LOWER LE VEL

N

The key views of the structure © Google Earth 2021

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 17

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

VIEW 01 From the Roman fort across the urban park

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

VIEW 02 From Duke Street looking along the length of the viaduct

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 18

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

VIEW 03 From on the viaduct looking along its length

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

VIEW 04 From beneath the viaduct near Bar Ca looking along the structure and across the canal

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 19

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

2.4 SITE DESCRIPTION A full gazetteer of features can be seen in Appendix D. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION The Castlefield Viaduct was constructed from 1890, opening in 1893. This 370yard (330m) long viaduct has eight steel lattice girder spans and masonry arches at the approaches. The steel elements were constructed by Heenan and Froude and the masonry by M W Wormsley to the designs of W G Scott, chief engineer for the Cheshire Lines Committee.

The main structural elements of which are: •

Longitudinal girders supporting the rails typically spanning 13ft.

4in. (4m) between transverse `fish belly’ girders,

•

Fish belly beams span transversely 38ft. (11.5m) to the inside face of the lattice trusses, across the full width of the viaduct on to lattice girders,

•

The lattice girders are 20ft (approx. 6m) deep and span up to 175ft. (53m) onto cast iron cylinders, some 60ft. high,

•

The cast iron cylinders are 10ft. 6in. (2.7m) diameter in the shaft and 13ft. 6in. (4.1m) at the base and are filled with masonry,

•

Overhead, bracing links to the tops of the lattice girders together,

•

Steel deck plates with waterproofing complete the structure.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

LOWER LEVEL The western extent of the designated viaduct reaches the Deansgate Metrolink car park, from which it continues approximately 500m as it curves to the south. At Egerton Street the metalwork structure finishes and a series of blue engineering brick arches carry the line over the road where it continues following the active line between Deansgate and Cornbrook Metrolink stops. The structure stands approximately 20m high (from lower ground to the top of the overhead bracing) and below deck it is supported on a series of cast iron columns that rise to a castellated top. The crenelations are of two tiers with a pair of blind arrow slits as decoration. Beneath the structure the deck is fish-bellied and consists of a series of plates with riveted supports. At the head of each column, but below the track bed, is a riveted and latticed cross support running across the structure between each column. The structure continues with a regular pattern with the only exception where it meets the Deansgate Metrolink car park. Here the structure changes to blue engineering brick with a gabled pier with stone dressings marking the end of the structure. Beyond this, the structure has three concentric arches (all filled with blue brick) before disappearing behind a retaining wall also of blue brick.

TRACK LEVEL At track level the site is accessed through modern palisade fencing, upon entering on the blue brick structure a railing of uprights with three horizontals forms a historic (although possibly not original) edge protection. Continuing onto the viaduct, the first few bays have a modern solid screen across the latticework as a form of edge protection whereas the remainder of the structure has a series of clamped scaffold bars forming a crude protection from the edge.

The rail track has been removed with the surface consisting of ballast and other rubble. Regularly spaced across the structure are a series of cast iron drainage covers. Across the structure are various selfseeded vegetation growth including some woody shrubs and trees.

Also of note are various pieces of scrap iron latticework visible from the ground that appears to be from the original overhead supports.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 20

Beneath the viaduct showing the fish bellied deck

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

UNDERSTANDING THE SITE, ITS SETTING AND CONTEXT

The sides form a regular metal latticework all riveted together, across eight bays. Some sections show spliced repairs also undertaken with rivets, however, there are few examples of this, and the regular pattern is repeated throughout with little or no variation. The steelwork lattices become slightly thinner towards the middle of each bay to reduce the weight of the structure.

APPENDICES

A series of metalwork plates rivetted together run horizontally across the viaduct approximately every 5m. One cross beam has a small gantry with ladder access. The eastern end of the structure terminates in a modern palisade fencing beyond which the active rail line merges with the viaduct. The metalwork is painted in a thick grey paint and views outwards from the structure over the canal and along the evolving city skyline.

The lattice work on each side of the viaduct

1.0 Introduction

The overhead bracing and ladder access in one location

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 21

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SECTION 3.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

TIMELINE SUMMARY AD 79 Roman fort of Mamucium founded

1850s The Cheshire Lines Committee formed

1979 Castlefield designated a conservation area

1363 Flemish weavers arrive in Manchester

1873 The Cheshire Lines Committee 1873 viaduct opened

1982 Roman fort reconstructed

1398 Thomas de la Warre became the Baron of the Manor of Manchester, remnants of the manor house can be seen at Chetham’s School.

1880 Central Station opened

1983 Science and Industry Museum opens at the Liverpool Road Station site

1653 Chetham’s Library opens as the first public library in the English-speaking world 1761 The Bridgewater Canal is opened

1891-94 Blackpool Tower constructed (steelwork by Heenan and Froude)

1992 Manchester Metrolink opens using the existing 1873 viaduct

1893 The 1892 viaduct opened

2002 Rochdale Canal restored and reopened

1894 Manchester Docks opened

1804 The Rochdale Canal opens joining the Bridgewater Canal south of the site area

c.1950s The overhead bracing on the viaduct is replaced

1830 Liverpool Road Station opened

1952 Rochdale Canal closed

1846-49 The Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway viaducts opened

1969 Central Station closed and the 1873 and 1892 viaducts abandoned. The track is also removed

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 22

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

3.1 MAP PROGRESSION Before the arrival of the Bridgewater Canal in 1761 the area was still on the outskirts of Manchester and relatively undeveloped. William Green’s plan of Manchester and Salford (1787-1794) shows the Bridgewater Canal and Potato Wharf now in place with the large daisy-shaped weir by James Brindley in the centre. The surrounding field is known as ‘Castle Field’, clearly a reference to the Roman fort either through anecdotal history or visible physical remains.

APPENDICES

Each of the following maps show an approximate location of the viaduct site in red

By the 1845 survey (1848 OS map) the area has developed rapidly, with Deansgate Ward showing various canal warehouses around Potato Wharf and the Liverpool Road Station to the north opened in 1830, providing Manchester’s (and the world’s) first intercity rail link, connecting Manchester and Liverpool. The Rochdale Canal of 1804 is also shown joining the Bridgewater Canal just south of the viaduct site. The site of the Roman fort is identified and is still undeveloped. None of the various rail viaducts are yet constructed.

By 1883, Slater’s New Plan of Manchester shows the area has continued to develop with the Roman fort now occupied by terraced housing. Potato Wharf is now crossed by three railway lines all entering the city from the west. Central Station has been constructed to the east of the site with one of the lines shown approaching the city along the River Irwell to the south. The site of the 1892 viaduct is now partially occupied by buildings that would be cleared for the line’s construction. The 1891 OS Town Plan shows a similar situation to 1883.

William Green’s plan of Manchester and Salford (1787-1794) Click on the viaduct for a detailed view

The 1894 survey (1896 OS Map) shows the 1892 viaduct for the first time with its line running north along the River Irwell following the existing route before terminating into Central Station. The 1908 OS County Series shows a further development of the railway infrastructure around the site as additional lines now run to the goods station next to Central Station. The situation remains largely unchanged into the 20 th century.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 23

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

1848 OS plan of Manchester (surveyed in 1845) Click on the viaduct for a detailed view

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 24

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

Slater’s New Plan of Manchester from 1883 Click on the viaduct for a detailed view

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 25

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

1896 OS plan of Manchester (surveyed in 1894) Click on the viaduct for a detailed view

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 26

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

1908 OS County Series of Manchester Click on the viaduct for a detailed view

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 27

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

1946 OS plan of Manchester (surveyed in 1938) Click on the viaduct for a detailed view

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 28

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

3.2 CASTLEFIELD 3.2.1 EARLY HISTORY (AD 43 TO AD 410) The name Castlefield refers to the settlement’s position below the former Roman fort. It is a contracted version of the earlier name Castle-in-the-field. A Roman fort (castra), Mamucium, was established in what is now Castlefield around AD 79 near a crossing place on the River Medlock 01. The fort was sited on a sandstone bluff near the confluence of the River Medlock and Irwell in a naturally defensible position. It was erected as a series of fortifications established by Gnaeus Julius Agricola during his campaign against the Brigantes, who were the Celtic tribe in control of most of northern England 02. It guarded a central stage of the Roman road, between Deva Victrix (Chester) and Eboracum (York). Built first from turf and timber, the fort was demolished around 140AD. When it was rebuilt around 160AD, it was again of turf and timber construction. Around the year 200AD, the fort underwent another rebuild enhancing its defences by replacing the gatehouse and facing the walls with stone. Mamucium is generally considered to be the origins of the current city of Manchester including its name.

The reconstructed remains of the Roman fort

01

Gregory, Richard A. (2007). Roman Manchester: the University of Manchester's excavations within the Vicus 2001–5. Oxbow Books.

02

Ibid

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 29

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

3.2.2 THE CANAL AGE (1700s-1830) The River Irwell was made navigable in the 1720s, leading to the construction of a quay in the area for loading and unloading of goods (vessels of up to 50 tons could dock here and ply between Manchester and Liverpool).03 The Bridgewater Canal was opened in Castlefield in July 1761. It terminated at the canal basin known as Potato Wharf in a giant ‘cloverleaf’ weir at a junction with the river Medlock (the Giant’s Basin, grade II listed). The weir took the overflow from the canal into the river and is of ‘national historical importance as the first such canal weir’.04 Although not technically the first canal (the Sankey Canal opened earlier in 1757) the Bridgewater Canal is considered the first great achievement of the canal age. It captured the public imagination because of its engineering feats and led to a boom in canal building in the following decades. The first canal warehouse, Duke’s Warehouse (1769-1771), was also built in Castlefield, it has since been demolished but has been partially reconstructed. The Rochdale Canal (1804), joined the Bridgewater at Lock 92 in Castlefield connecting Manchester with Yorkshire and the Pennines.

03

Frangopulo, N. J., ed. (1962) Rich Inheritance. Manchester: Education Committee; p. 33

04

https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/education/educational-images/thegiants-basin-potato-wharf-manchester-8422

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Lock 92 of the Rochdale Canal at Castlefield

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 30

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

3.2.3 THE RAILWAY AGE (1830-1900) Goods traffic was at an all-time high between Liverpool and Manchester in the 1820s. Liverpool was the country’s main port for raw cotton which was sent to Manchester, then known informally as ‘Cottonopolis’ due to the large number of cotton mills.05 Manchester would send finished textiles back to Liverpool and out across the world but journeys between these two hubs of manufacturing and trade were expensive and slow.

The canals that had revolutionised transport 50 years prior were now holding up production and roads were bumpy and equally slow.06 As a solution to this, it was in Castlefield just north of Potato Wharf where the Liverpool and Manchester Railway opened as the world’s first steam powered, inter-urban railway designed to transport both passengers and goods. Its Manchester terminus was Liverpool Road Station, now home to the Science and Industry Museum which survives as a collection of grade I and II listed buildings.

Passengers and goods could now travel between Liverpool and Manchester much more quickly, boosting trade and industry and helped fuel Manchester’s growth into a booming manufacturing centre. Between 1830 and 1845, over 35 lines sprung up all over Britain, in 05

The cotton industry, vital to the economy of Manchester and other northern towns, had far reaching, global consequences.

See: Slocombe, E. Industrialisation and the import of Cotton in: Huxtable, S et al. Eds, (2020) Interim Report on the connections between colonialism and properties now in the care of the National Trust pp 56 -58 https://nt.global.ssl.fastly.net/documents/colionialism-andhistoric-slavery-report.pdf

06

https://www.scienceandindustrymuseum.org.uk/objects-andstories/making-the-liverpool-and-manchester-railway

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

a period known as ‘Railway Mania’. The success was reported abroad, and the Liverpool and Manchester became the blueprint for hundreds of new railways around the world.07 As the 19th century progressed the canals gave way to the railways and Castlefield became dissected by a network of railway lines carried on a series of viaducts. “[The engine] goes upon two wheels, which are her feet, and are moved by bright steel legs called pistons…The coals, which are its oats, were under the bench, and there was a small glass tube affixed to the boiler, with water in it, which indicates by its fullness or emptiness when the creature wants water…This snorting little animal, which I felt rather inclined to pat, was then harnessed to our carriage, and, Mr. Stephenson having taken me on the bench of the engine with him, we started at about ten miles an hour… When I closed my eyes, this sensation of flying was quite delightful, and strange beyond description; yet strange as it was, I had a perfect sense of security, and not the slightest fear.”

– A letter by Fanny Kemble on riding on the Liverpool to Manchester line (1830)08 Preceding the 1892 viaduct, The Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway built a series of brick viaducts in Castlefield between 1846-49 and the Cheshire Lines Committee built the extant neighbouring viaduct in 1873 forming their route to Liverpool.

07

ibid

08

https://blog.scienceandindustrymuseum.org.uk/fanny-kemble/

3.0 Historic Background

Liverpool and Manchester Railway, titled ‘Entrance into Manchester across Water Street’ engraved by H. Pyall (1831)

4.0 Significance 31

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

A satirical print showing horses made redundant by the advent of the railway

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 32

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

Regeneration of the former station coupled with designation as a conservation area in 1979, the creation of an urban park and the recreated Roman fort in 1982 were all heritage-led catalysts for change that kick-started a revival of the area. Tourism and leisure are now growth industries which have transformed Castlefield from a neglected corner of the city to a popular area for visitors and tourists.09

3.2.4 20TH CENTURY (1900-PRESENT) Gradually both the railways and canals declined during the 20th century due to a fall in passenger numbers and freight. Manchester and Castlefield also suffered due to the loss of the industrial base of the area after the 1950s. Manchester’s industries were largely based on the cotton trade which plummeted after World War One as production ramped up in countries closer to where the raw material was grown.

‘At Castlefield, they were busy creating yesterday’s city today, cleaning up the old brick viaducts and warehouses, recobbling the quaysides, putting fresh coats of glossy paint on the old arched footbridges and scattering about a generous assortment of old-fashioned benches, bollards and lampposts. By the time they have finished, you will be able to see exactly what life was like in nineteenth century Manchester - or at least what it would be like if they had wine-bars, and cast-iron litter bins and directional signs for heritage trails and the G-Mex Centre’.

Overall, Manchester employment declined by 22% between 1951 and 1981. Jobs in engineering and electrical goods almost halved and textile industry jobs fell by 86%. The rail network that carried these goods also declined and continued to suffer from competition from road and rail.

The Bridgewater Canal remained open to traffic although the Rochdale Canal closed in 1952 (to be reopened in 2002). Castlefield was defined by dereliction until the 1980s when the Science and Industry Museum opened on the former Liverpool Road Station site which was long abandoned.

- Notes from a Small Island by Bill Bryson (1996)

The then abandoned Liverpool Road Station in 1985 The viaduct and canal network in 1972

1.0 Introduction

09

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/info/511/conservation_areas/972/castlefield_conservation_area/2

4.0 Significance 33

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE 1892 VIADUCT 3.3.1 THE CHESHIRE LINES COMMITTEE (CLC) The 1892 viaduct was built by the Cheshire Lines Committee (CLC) and the following gives a brief overview of the company and their involvement in Manchester.

LIVERPOOL ROAD STATION

The CLC was formed in the 1850s as a loose affiliation of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway and the Great Northern Railway (and later joined by the Midland Railway) in a common struggle against the monopoly of the London and North Western Railway around Lancashire and Cheshire. Sir Edward Watkin (1819-1901) became Director and part owner and was the driving force behind the early years of the company.

Watkins, sometimes known as the ‘Railway King’, was chairman of nine railway companies, constructed the Metropolitan Line in London and pioneered a failed attempt to build a channel tunnel. Under Watkin’s influence the CLC grew to serve Liverpool, Manchester, Stockport, Warrington, Widnes, Northwich, Winsford, Knutsford, Birkenhead, Chester and Southport. By 1939 over 11 million passengers and 8.5 million tons of goods were carried by the CLC each year10. Dyckhott (1999) described it as a railway of local and national significance due to the connections it created between the industrial towns of the north west.11 It was the only railway to remain under its own ownership up to 1947 and when it was nationalised it had been in existence for 82 years, the second longest running railway company after Great Western.

The Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway (1846 - 1849) CLC 1893 Line CLC Liverpool Railway (1873) Rochdale Canal (1804) Bridgewater Canal/Potato Wharf (1761)

10

Dyckhott, N. (1999) Portrait of the Cheshire Lines Committee.

11

Ibid

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

The historic infrastructure around the site

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 34

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

Completion of the direct Manchester to Liverpool line provided the partners with access to Liverpool without going through Manchester.

The CLC Manchester to Liverpool Express took 45 minutes for the 34-mile route12, comparable to the times of between 40 minutes to over an hour by other operators. Averaging a speed of 51.5 mph, it was considerably quicker than the existing route and became a byword for speed and reliability known as ‘the punctual route’.13 The CLC was also the first company to introduce cheap fares between Liverpool and Manchester, in 1877 return tickets were 8s for 1st class, 6s for 2nd class, 4s 6d for 3rd class14. In 1887, the CLC average construction cost per mile of track was £88,000 and, with the exception of the London Metropolitan line, was the most expensive per mile in the country.15

APPENDICES

The CLC handled a lot of freight; there were steelworks at Irlam near Manchester and on the river Dee near Chester, large chemical works were built around Northwich in central Cheshire and at Widnes on the bank of the Mersey. All of these generated traffic and received considerable quantities of Lancashire coal and broken limestone from the Peak District. The docks in Liverpool

and Manchester provided plenty of traffic and the line between Liverpool and Manchester carried considerable goods traffic. At the Manchester end Britain’s first and largest industrial estate at Trafford Park contained a great range of manufacturing industries.

Nearby the CWS built a large soap factory served by the CLC and in 1922 an oil refinery opened at Stanlow on the south bank of the Manchester Ship Canal.

Facilities at Oxford Road Station, Manchester soon proved inadequate for the growing transport requirements and a new station was built. Designed by Sir John Fowler, Central Station (now the Central Convention Centre or GMEX) was opened in 1880 by the CLC. The building has a distinctive arched roof with a 64-metre span, the second-largest railway station roof span in the United Kingdom16, and was granted grade II* listed building status in 1963.

Central Station became one of the busiest stations in the country, in 1905 it had more than double Euston and St Pancreas’ passenger numbers.17 The CLC had high overheads as they did not own any locomotives instead renting them from other companies but made comfortable profits of £21,000 in 1874, £145,000 in 1886, £218,000 in 1908 with a gradual decline from 1925 and a loss of £41,000 in 1932.

12

Ibid

13

Griffiths, R.P. (1978) The Cheshire Lines Railway.

14

Dyckhott, N. (1984) The Chesire Lines Committee: Then and Now.

Central Station c.1900

15 Dyckhott, N. (1999) Portrait of the Cheshire Lines Committee.

16

Manchester Central Station (G-MEX) roof, Engineering Timelines, http://www. engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=603

17

Ibid

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 35

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

3.3.2 LOCOMOTIVES USED BY THE CLC The only engines the CLC ever owned were four Sentinel passenger steam rail-cars which operated from 1929 until about 1945. Locomotives were originally supplied exclusively by the MSLR (Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway) but from the 1880’s the MR (Midland Railway) and GNR (Great Northern Railway) began operating their locomotives on the line.

Over the next sixty years the works constructed many of the MS&LR locomotives with some loaned to the CLC.18

The locomotive works for the MSLR were situated at Gorton, Manchester, opened in 1849. Locomotive building began at Gorton in 1858 with the completion of 0-6-0 No. 6 Archimedes.

What would later become part of the 1892 viaduct line had 16 trains each way daily (between Manchester and Liverpool) in 1874 and by 1877 they were hourly in each direction at half past the hour from 8.30am to 9.30pm. 20

In 1922 the CLC owned about four and a half thousand goods and mineral vehicles with a small number of horse boxes and carriage trucks in passenger livery. The line owned about a hundred and fifty service vehicles.19

Charles Sacré’s Class “6” 4-4-0 No. 440, built at Gorton Works in 1881 used by the MSLR

A sentinel passenger steam rail-car

Advertisement showing a locomotive marked “CLC” despite the company not owning any locomotives showing some artistic licence. It appears to be an ex-Great Eastern “D-15” Class 4-4-0 belonging to the number series 8810-8819.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

18

Larkin (1988), The Railway Workshops of Britain: 1823-1986 p. 72

19

https://www.igg.org.uk/rail/00-app2/joint/clc.htm

20

Griffiths, R.P. (1978) The Cheshire Lines Railway.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 36

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

3.3.3 THE 1892 VIADUCT The 1892 viaduct line was part of a route from Central Station to Cornbrook Goods Station and the docks at the Port of Manchester (now Salford Quays) to assist the contractor in the supply of material for the dock’s construction21. Dyckhott (1999) suggests the line was intended as ‘temporary’ and was built on wooden trestles but remained in use after the opening of the docks in 189422. No source is given by Dyckhott (1999) for the temporary nature of the route and it seems somewhat at odds with the monumental design of the viaduct.

A series of detailed engineering drawings for the viaduct survive within Network Rail’s archives dated March 1890 by the CLC’s Chief Engineer G.W. Scott (appendix E). The contractors are listed as Heenan and Froude and M.W. Walmsley and Co. The designs show the viaduct as extant today with the only exception being the overhead bracing being latticed. Rusted fragments of metal found in the undergrowth of the viaduct deck are likely to relate to this original bracing. The date of the current bracing and why it was replaced is not clear, aerial photographs of 1938 show the viaduct but the image quality does not allow the bracing to be identified.

Jacobs (2010) suggests the latticework would have been susceptible to blast damage by locomotive exhausts and this may explain why they were replaced with solid web sections also suggesting they probably date from the early 1950s23.

21

Dyckhott, N. (1999) Portrait of the Cheshire Lines Committee.

22

Ibid

23

Jacobs (2010) Castlefield North Viaduct, Manchester BRIDGE REF: MAJ/289 Assessment of Principal Structural Members.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

A plan of the proposed Manchester Docks in 1893 Click on the diagram for a full-size view

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 37

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

Engineering sketch from 1890 showing the proposed viaduct, part of the archive records of engineering drawings held by Network Rail Click on the diagram for a full-size view

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 38

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

Testing by Jacobs (2010) confirms the lattice work to be carbon steel with the columns of cast iron.

The Forth Rail Bridge of 1882-1890 (category A listed and World Heritage Site) is the ‘world’s first major steel structure’, representing a key milestone in the history of the modern railway to employ steel throughout. 24 Therefore, the use of carbon steel on the viaduct must be an early use of this material (although not the first) which would later become commonplace in bridge building around the world.

The 1893 CLC Plan of the Railway Estate produced

by Chief Engineer William George Scott (held at Manchester archives) shows the viaduct had three lines of track that converge with the existing line leading to Central Station. The Roman fort is also identified on the plan although it would appear no physical remains were extant at this point.

A plan of the CLC estate in 1893 showing the 1892 viaduct Click on the diagram for a full-size view

24

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/175812061 3Z.00000000037

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 39

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

Several local newspapers ran with the opening of the viaduct as a major story, such as The Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser on Saturday 6th May 1893 giving a detailed account of the opening of the line with a ceremony involving the installation of a copper rivet. The full article is included in appendix F with a paraphrased exert here. The various articles include a sketch of the viaduct.

THE 1892 VIADUCT25 •

Built by the CLC Chief Engineer William George Scott

•

Constructed by Heenan and Froude and M.W. Walmsley and Co.

•

Total weight of iron and steel is over 7000 tons

•

Made with 6,000,000 rivets

•

14,000 cubic feet of concrete.

•

Cost - £250,000 Sketch from 1893 of the opening of the viaduct from the Manchester Times Click on the image to see the full article

25

Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Thursday 22 June 1893.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 40

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

‘IMPORTANT RAILWAY EXTENSION IN MANCHESTER. THE NEW CHESHIRE LINES VIADUCT ‘No more certain or reliable evidence of the increase of business and general progress of any centre of industry can be obtained than that which is afforded by the extensions which take place from time to time of our railway systems…

‘The new viaduct carries three new sets of rails from a point near the engine shed at Cornbrook to the Central Station, the distance covered being three-quarters of a mile. There are 56 arches, several girder bridges, and a steel latticed viaduct 370 yards long.

…. The two lines were sufficient for the requirements for a considerable time, but the traffic has during the past six or seven years been so great that it was found absolutely necessary to widen the viaduct. In 1888 plans and designs were furnished by Mr. W. G. Scott, chief engineer of the Cheshire Lines. In due course the designs were approved by the Cheshire Lines Committee and the Midland Railway Company, and parliamentary powers to raise the necessary capital and proceed with the work were obtained. In 1890 the contracts were let, and the big undertaking was commenced.

‘Another difficulty lay in the fact that in making the excavations the men came upon an old culvert or tunnel constructed in years long gone by, probably for the purpose of diverting the River Medlock when the Bridgewater Canal was made. A thick brick arch was built over the tunnel, and upon this one of the cylinders supporting the viaduct was placed, being firmly embedded in concrete.

The result will be to facilitate the traffic, and prevent the delays which have unavoidably taken place in running trains into the station, owing, as already indicated, to the great increase which has taken place the traffic.

‘The viaduct may fairly be described as a triumph of engineering skill. It has been constructed on a principle which makes it almost, if not quite, unique. Some notion may be formed of the nature and importance of the extension from the fact that the total cost has amounted to £250,000. Extensive blocks of buildings had to be demolished to make room for the viaduct, and foundations of great depth and solidity had necessarily to be put in to bear the great mass of iron and steel employed in the building, not to mention the weight of the trains that will pass over it.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

‘The contractors for the masonry and brickwork were Messrs. M. W. Walmsley and Co., of Manchester and Southport, and for the steel and ironwork Messrs, Heenan and Froude, of Newton Heath.

‘The contracts may be said to have been finally completed on Wednesday, and in the afternoon of that day a pleasing little ceremony took place on the viaduct at the point where it crosses the Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway. This was the fixing and clinching of the last rivet by Mr. W. G. Scott, C.E., and Mr. Heenan. Mr. Onbridge, on behalf of Messrs. Heenan and Froude, presented Mr. Scott with a handsome mahogany case lined with satin, and containing two silver-plated hammers, and two rivets, one gold and the other silver, as a memento of the occasion. A copper rivet was placed in the only remaining slot, and this was duly clinched by Mr. Scott and Mr. Heenan, amid loud cheers.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 41

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

3.3.4 THE ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS

Heenan and Froude The company started as a partnership formed by engineers Richard Froude and Hammerley Heenan, originating as Heenan Construction Company of Manchester. The company undertook several significant late-Victorian engineering projects, including supplying and constructing the steelworks for Folkestone Pier (1887) and in the same year supplying a 1,600 feet (490m) girder bridge to Empresa de los Ferrocarriles del Estado, the national railway of Chile. The company had wide ranging interests as broad as designing torpedoes for the admiralty. At the same time as the viaduct’s construction, in 1892 Heenan and Froude won the contract for the steelwork of Blackpool Tower as well as the electric lighting and steelwork for the fish tanks in the aquarium. The structure is grade I listed and is the firm’s most notable work.

Blackpool Tower built at the same time also uses steelwork girders fixed with rivets. At the time of Blackpool Tower construction it was Britain’s tallest building and in 1919 commentator Thomas Luke celebrated Blackpool Tower as ‘one of the wonders of the world’.27 The iron and steelwork for both Blackpool Tower and the 1892 viaduct would have been made at the company’s works at Newton Heath Ironworks, Manchester. The factory no longer survives.

William George Scott (1839-1914) Scott was born in Manchester in 1839, and died at Liverpool on the 15th May, 1914. After serving his pupillage on the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire, and South Yorkshire Railways, he was appointed, in 1862, Resident Engineer on the former system, and subsequently acted in a similar capacity on other lines in the Midlands and Cheshire. In 1874, he was appointed Engineer to the CLC, a position which he held for nearly 30 years, when he retired through ill-health. During this period he carried out a number of important local and regional works, including diversions, extensions, widenings, bridges and other buildings. Scott was elected an Associate of The Institution of Civil Engineers on the 6th December 1870, and was transferred to the class of Members on the 30th October, 187726 . Other works undertaken by Scott include the Cadishead viaduct of 1892, built in a similar lattice design to that of the Castlefield Viaduct; it is surprisingly not listed.

M.W. Walmsley and Co. The contractors for the masonry and brickwork were Messrs. M. W. Walmsley and Co., of Manchester and Southport.

The Cadishead Viaduct

The Workforce Relatively little is known about the workforce, their lives and their time building and assembling the structure and this is an area of potential further research.

26

27

https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/pdf/10.1680/imotp.1914.16327

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

https://heritagecalling.com/2020/05/14/eight-things-to-know-about-blackpool/

4.0 Significance 42

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

3.3.5 DECLINE AND ABANDONMENT It appears unlikely the 1892 line and viaduct were ever electrified. The neighbouring Altrincham line was electrified in 1931 but an article from Railway Wonders of the World from 1935 states the CLC was still hauled by steam traction. 28 The main line between Manchester and Liverpool has still not been electrified as of 2021 despite various government proposals. 29 Manchester Central Station closed in 1969 and would eventually find a use as a convention centre following a period of dereliction, and has most recently been used as a nightingale hospital during the Covid-19 epidemic of 2020/21.30

The 1892 viaduct was abandoned at the same time as Central Station, along with the neighbouring CLC viaduct which would eventually become part of the Manchester Metrolink in 1992. The 1873 Cornbrook Viaduct was chosen for the Metrolink as it was considered at the time to be in a better condition than the later 1892 Viaduct.

The tracks were removed in 1969 after closure of the line.31 In 2009, Jacobs were contracted to carry out repair and maintenance work on the structure. With Coronation Street filmed at nearby Grenada studios, until 2015 the viaduct was occasionally used as on location filming. Although not implicitly identified as such, a grey steel viaduct with castle turrets features in the Pokémon Sword / Shield games (2019) for the area of ‘Motostoke’ which is loosely based on Manchester.

Aerial photo from 1934 showing the viaduct at the bottom of the image

Aerial photo from 1938 showing the viaduct to the right of the image

28

https://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/joint-railways.html

29

https://www.railwaygazette.com/infrastructure/electrification-priorities-in-northern-england/40612. article

30

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29816152

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

31

http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/bridges/castlefield.html

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 43

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

‘Motostoke’ as seen in the Pokémon Sword and Shield games.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 44

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

3.4

APPENDICES

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

This section is grateful for the contribution of Greg Hardie at ARUP. The 1892 viaduct was completed towards the end of the ‘Railway Mania’ of the mid-19th century and by this point much of the UK was crisscrossed with various rail lines, bridges and viaducts. The Castlefield Viaduct made use of established 19th century construction methods, which included riveting prefabricated metal trusses together, allowing stronger and lighter structures to be built more quickly. Recently improved materials such as blue engineering bricks were used for the brick arches, as well as traditional castiron columns working under compression. What was innovative about the 1892 Viaduct (in comparison to its earlier 1873 sister) was the early use of carbon steel for the girders.

This section seeks to place the 1892 viaduct within this wider context, both nationally and internationally, in terms of its structural and architectural design, engineering innovation and materiality.

We are grateful to Greg Hardie of Arup for his contribution to this section.

3.4.1 ENGINEERING DESIGN Lattice Girder Bridges The 1892 viaduct is an example of latticed-girder bridge construction, which was a common structural system for the time, connecting smaller pieces of flat steel plate to carry heavy loads over longer distances. In the case of the 1892 viaduct, up to 175ft (53m). For context, a list of 19th century UK examples of bridges and viaducts constructed using this method has been included in this section.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

The 1892 Viaduct is an early example of a lattice girder bridge of which the following examples have been identified: 1847 - Darwen Street Bridge, Blackburn

1870 - Gallowgate Railway Bridge

1848 - Darcy Lever Railway Bridge (rebuilt 1883)

1873 - Wandsworth Bridge (replaced 1937)

1848 - Dutch River Bridge, Goole

1873 - Irlam Viaduct

1849 - Bowshank Railway Bridge

1874 - Wick River Bridge, Sibster, Caithness

1849 - Wishaw Railway Bridge

1874 - Halkirk Bridge

1851 - Marton Junction Bridge

1874 - Kinbrace Railway Bridge

1852 - Llandeilo Railway Bridge

1877 - Bennerley Viaduct

1863 - Cragganmore Railway Bridge

1878 - Bath Station Railway Bridge

1864 - Waterloo Railway Bridge

1880 - Montrose Viaduct

1865 - Logierait Bridge

1882 - Fortyfoot Bridge, Lincolnshire

1866 - Llangefni Railway Bridge

1882 - Oxford Gasworks Bridge

1867 - Pont Goed Bridge, Pentre Berw, Isle of Anglesey

1888 - Burntisland Viaduct

1867 - Brixton Railway Bridge

1889 - Fulham Railway Bridge

1868 - River Trent Bridge, Melbourne, Derbyshire

1892 - Cadishead Viaduct

1868 - Runcorn Railway Bridge

1892 - Castlefield Viaduct

1869 - Kew Railway Bridge

1898 - Coatbridge Railway Bridge 1891 - Rochester Railway Bridge 1900 - Partick Railway Bridge

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 45

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

Engineering drawing from 1890 showing the constraints of the site from existing structures and infrastructure.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 46

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

The lattice truss bridge was patented in 1820 by architect Ithiel Town of Connecticut America. Originally designed to allow a substantial bridge to be made from planks employing lower–skilled labour, rather than heavy timbers and more expensive carpenters, this type of bridge has also been constructed using many relatively light iron or steel members. It was known as Town’s Lattice Truss or Town Truss and responded to the expanding railway networks need for bridges to be built quickly from readily available material and by unskilled labour. Loads on the diagonals alternate between compression and tension (approaching the centre), with no vertical elements, while elements near the centre must support both tension and compression in response to live loads.

This configuration combines strength with economy of materials and can therefore be relatively light. The girders being of equal length, it is ideal for use in prefabricated modular bridges. Individual elements are more easily handled by the construction workers and a simple lattice truss will transform the applied loads into a thrust, as the bridge will tend to change length under load. This is resisted by pinning the lattice members to the top and bottom chords, which are more substantial than the lattice members, but which may also be fabricated from relatively small elements rather than large beams. Structural members commonly made using a combination of structural sections connected with diagonal lacing allows a strut to resist axial compression and a (tie) to resist axial tension. A lattice girder, like any girder, primarily resists bending.

APPENDICES

Lattice Truss bridge, Ithiel Town

In response to increasing loads and spans the lattice system was doubled forming a slender box in cross section. This development was patented in 1840 and retained the roof and roadway running within the depth of the girder. This design was imported to Europe where it was adapted for use with wrought iron and steel flats.

Rather than having the flat elements vertical for the top and bottom flanges these were laid flat, the connection formed with a small angle thus forming a wider, more stable box.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 47

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

On the 1892 viaduct, the lattice girders form the sides of the viaduct and collect loads from the fish belly beams below and transmit them to the cylindrical piers. At Castlefield, obstacles such as the Bridgewater canal, coal wharves, warehouses and the Manchester South Junction main line necessitated locating the girders at the same level as the trains rather than below it.

The lattice girders are 20ft. (6m) deep and 36in. (0.9m) wide beams with stacked steel plates forming the top and bottom or ‘flanges’, diagonal flats forming the sides connecting the two, all riveted together. The top and bottom flanges were made up from stacked plates riveted together. Where the force in the flange was greatest, at mid span, more plates were used. To minimise the use of material, the lattice members vary. Towards the support, as the vertical load is progressively collected the diagonal members become wider in response to the increasing force.

The ends of each lattice girder are seated on a lab of Shap granite to evenly distribute the concentrated load from the girder into the cylindrical pier. The Network Rail drawings show each girder is separate from its neighbour. The gap presumably allowing for thermal movement in this 270yd (330m) long structure.

APPENDICES

Overhead bracing Over the track on the 1892 viaduct there is bracing linking the lattice girders together. In the latter part of the 19th century Timoshenko notes in his History of Strength of Materials that ‘several failures of open bridges occurred in Western Europe and Russia’. In this context, ‘open’ means a bridge where the tops of the trusses are not connected. The original latticed bracing has been replaced (c.mid-20th century) but it performs the same function – preventing the tops of the lattice girders from twisting and the top chord from buckling. This enables the lattice girder to support a higher load.

Piers Cast-iron cylinders of the 1892 viaduct were made in sections, bolted together, and filled with masonry in a cement mortar. The base of the cylinders is flared to spread the load from the viaduct over a greater area. They are founded on bedrock 20ft. (6m) below ground.

All loads applied to structures from trains, people, wind etc and their own self weight make their way to the ground through the piers. At Castlefield the viaduct was tested to demonstrate it could support the required loads by parking several railway engines on it.

Twelve engines were used and a contemporary newspaper report stated, ‘The test was varied in severity, but under the greatest strain, far exceeding as it did anything that would fall upon the viaduct in actual practice, the structure gave great satisfaction.’

This diagram illustrates how load from the trains flow safely through the structure to the ground. The load path for the viaduct takes the weight of locomotives and carriages on the rails through the girders and down the piers to bedrock.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 48

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

APPENDICES

Fish-belly girders The transverse fish-belly beams can be found beneath the track bed and span across the full width between the lattice girders that form the sides of the viaduct.

Conclusion Overall, the 1892 viaduct was constructed against a background of rapid structural material and technological development in the 19th century. Its structural form was also influenced by many factors including physical constraints, the materials and technology available, local economic conditions and the designers and constructors experience. The latticework, large columns and fish bellied deck were all common engineering techniques by this time used in similar structures for strength and their relatively lightweight qualities and the 1892 viaduct is an expression of the greater confidence in techniques and materials gained by the 1890s.

Load from the rail bearers above (plates and angles riveted together to support the rails) is concentrated on ‘fish-belly’ girders. These girders are so named because of the distinctive and attractive curved profile like the belly of a fish. Curving the bottom of the girder makes it deeper at mid span where the forces are highest, making it an effective use of material. Like the rail bearers the girder is made from steel plates and angles riveted together. However, because load is being concentrated on a larger girder the additional expense of making a girder with a curved bottom is paid for by the material saved, by reducing the depth near to the supports.

This can perhaps be illustrated by comparing the area supported by the longitudinal girder and the fish belly girder. Each rail bearer supports 6.6m2, whereas the fish belly girder supports 46m2. This is approximately seven times as much area, and if uniformly loaded with trains seven times the load.

Diagram showing the load from trains onto the rail bearers and how this flows down through the fish-belly girders to the piers.

Article describing the load testing of the structure from Manchester Evening News, 22nd June 1893.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 49

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

The Forth Rail Bridge

APPENDICES

Logierait Bridge, Perthshire of 1875

Rockingham Street Bridge, London (c. 1890s)

King Edward VII Bridge, Gateshead

King Edward VII Bridge, Gateshead

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 50

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

3.4.2 MATERIALS Structural steel While the structural components of the 1892 viaduct were relatively common for the time, its use of carbon steel rather than wrought or cast iron was a much newer innovation. The use of steel was still developing at this point and was being used on pioneering structures such as the Forth Rail Bridge of 1882-1890, which was the first major structure in the world to be constructed in steel. The use of carbon steel less than a decade later by CLC puts their engineers at the forefront of technology. In 1892, the CLC commissioned the Cadishead Viaduct, also by Scott, built a year earlier than the Castlefield Viaduct.

Following the development of the Bessemer Converter in 1856 and the Open-hearth furnace in 1867, enabling the economic production of reliable steel, the use of steel in construction became increasingly more widespread. In Britain by the 1890s, steel had largely replaced wrought iron, perhaps hastened by the Tay Rail Bridge disaster in 1879. Although around the world some significant bridges and structures, such as the Eiffel Tower, opened 1889, continued to be constructed in wrought iron for another few decades. On railways, cast-iron beams were prohibited for new construction following the failure at Inverythan in 1882 and were steadily replaced after the Norwood Junction collapse of 1891.32 After c.1900, the use of steel in bridges and viaducts became widespread such as King Edward VII Bridge (1902-06) in Gateshead (grade II) and Queen Alexandra Bridge (1907-09) in Sunderland (grade II). Fabrication of the 1892 viaduct was by riveting which again was common until welding became commonplace in the 1930s.

32

Dunn, Tim (26 August 2020). "Great railway bores of our time!". RAIL. No. 912. Peterborough: Bauer Media Group. pp. 42–49.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

Structural steel is stronger and more supple than cast or wrought iron, and allowed greater design flexibility. The last thirty years of the 19th century witnessed the phasing in of steel plates and rolled shapes, leading to the enormous production of steel trusses and plate-girder spans of ever-increasing lengths throughout the world.

Steel arches and cantilevers were favoured for long spans because they better withstood the impact, vibration, and concentrated loads of heavy rail traffic. The 1892 viaduct is mostly made from flat pieces of plate riveted together into larger sections or lattice trusses. The details show some small-rolled angles have been used.

The earliest known use of steel in bridge construction was the suspension span across the Danube Canal (1828) near Vienna, Austria designed by Ignaz von Mitis. Steel halved the weight of wrought iron, but it remained prohibitively expensive for another forty years before steelmaking processes such as the Bessemer and the open-hearth were perfected. The most significant use of steel in bridge building of the 19th century was the Forth Railway Bridge in Scotland (1890) as previously discussed.

Brick The earlier viaducts in Castlefield by The Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway built between 1846-49 are of red brick arches, as was the case with most early railway viaducts.

Building viaducts of brick would be relatively time consuming and labour intensive and as the 19th century continued iron and steel started to be produced on a mass scale, meaning new construction materials became available. The railways themselves also helped with the transportation of materials; before the mid-19th century handmade bricks may have been produced on site, but the railway enabled steel and iron to be transported around the country with ease. The blue engineering bricks used for the 1892 viaduct started to become common from the 1850s; they are stronger and more frost resistant than the handmade red bricks of the earlier viaducts.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 51

Cast Iron The 1892 viaduct continued to make use of cast iron for the drum piers as these worked under compression, carrying the load down to the bedrock below. The piers were also decorated with castellated cast iron. This is similar to the neighbouring viaduct of 1873, also by the CLC, as they both comprise cast iron columns rising to a castellated turret which carries the rail deck. Further north of the site at the Liverpool Road Station in 1867, a similar viaduct was built, again supported on large cast iron columns although without the castellations, and here the rail deck was carried on a series of jack arches.

3.4.3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Many of the earliest railway structures, including viaducts, had little ornamentation or decorative interest and the neighbouring 1846-49 viaduct has simple red brick arches with stone dressings.

However, it was not uncommon for earlier railways to adopt a Neo-Classical design. The Leaderfoot Viaduct (Category A listed) built in 1863 in the Scottish Borders is a tall slender structure and has the appearance of a Roman aqueduct, probably a reference to the nearby Roman fort of Trimontium.

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

HISTORIC BACKGROUND

The original design intent of the CLC is not known, but there are a number of reasons why they may have chosen to use Gothic, castellated columns: •

Earlier railway structures were unembellished and functional.

As they became more affluent, the companies wished to proclaim their confidence through architectural detailing.

•

Fashions in the 1890s had shifted from the Classical towards use of the Neo-Gothic for infrastructure, for example the crenelated Bramhope Tunnel in Yorkshire and St Pancras station.

•

Gothic architecture had a naturalising effect that historicised and softened the impact of brash modern structures in novel materials, and at the same time proclaimed liberalism, and free commerce: the powers of the guilds and the trading classes.

•

The turrets may simply be a reference to the Castlefield area and a nod to its antiquity as a Roman fort.

Although the design of both viaducts is likely a reference to Castlefield itself and the Roman fort it was not unusual for railways to adopt a gothic revival design. Bramhope Tunnel (grade II), West Yorkshire, built between 1845-49 gives the appearance of a folly or medieval fortification said to be due to the demands of the local landowner.33

APPENDICES

A comparison of the use of Neo-Classical and Neo-Gothic can be seen in practice when looking at Kings Cross Station (1854) and the St Pancras Midland Hotel (1866) in London. These two adjacent structures were constructed a decade apart yet they display entirely different concepts of revival architecture.

The viaduct also responds to its wider context of Manchester, where the Neo-Gothic was favoured in including variations such as the Italianate and Medieval. Neo-Gothic (or Gothic Revival) architecture drew its inspiration from the past. A.W.N. Pugin and John Ruskin were key advocates of the style and Ruskin’s ‘The Seven Lamps of Architecture’ (1849) stated that the Middle Ages were a watershed in human achievement and that Gothic architecture represented the perfect marriage of spiritual and artistic values. The earliest manifestations of an interest in the medieval era were in the private domain, but by the 1820s public buildings in England were also being designed in the Gothic style. The Houses of Parliament (1840), designed by Sir Charles Barry and A.W.N. Pugin being a key example and more locally Manchester Town Hall (1877).

The Leaderfoot Viaduct, Scottish Borders

The influence of Frenchman Viollet-le-Duc won out over Ruskin by the 1890s, ensuring that iron (not just stone) could be used in Gothic structures and should be celebrated, not hidden. This honesty of materials appealed to industrialists who were able to celebrate their innovative materials and engineering while also conforming to the architectural ideals of the day.

The Gothic Revival was to remain one of the most potent and long-lived of the 19th-century revival styles and this influence can clearly be seen in the arrow-slits and castellations at the 1892 viaduct.

Bramhope Tunnel, West Yorkshirea

33

Dunn, Tim (26 August 2020). “Great railway bores of our time!”. RAIL. No. 912. Peterborough: Bauer Media Group. pp. 42–49.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 52

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SECTION 4.0 SIGNIFICANCE

APPENDICES

4.1 INTRODUCTION This section will draw on the understanding outlined in the historic background section articulating significance using the interests provided by the National Trust The ‘interests’, are being used as referenced in the most recent Historic England guidance relating to statements of significance. In addition, the Trust has defined people value as a distinct area for this work, which connects to the communal value, identified in the conservation principles.

Significance can be defined as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. The interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic.

Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

The understanding of the significance of a place is vital to inform sensitively managed change. In accordance with Historic England Advice Note 12 – Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets the following criteria are employed within this report to assess significance: Archaeological Interest There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially holds, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point.

1.0 Introduction

Architectural and Artistic Interest These are interests in the design and general aesthetics of a place. They can arise from conscious design or fortuitously from the way the heritage asset has evolved. More specifically, architectural interest is an interest in the art or science of the design, construction, craftsmanship and decoration of buildings and structures of all types. Artistic interest is an interest in other human creative skills, like sculpture.

Historic Interest An interest in past lives and events (including pre-historic). Heritage assets can illustrate or be associated with them. Heritage assets with historic interest not only provide a material record of our nation’s history but can also provide meaning for communities derived from their collective experience of a place and can symbolise wider values such as faith and cultural identity.

People value What the structure means for people in the past and today. Value deriving from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory.

The levels of relative significance used to inform the assessment of significance in this heritage statement are as follows:

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

Very High Significance

Attributable to those themes, features, buildings or spaces which are the most valuable. These elements are considered to be essential to the understanding and appreciation of the place and are contributors to its overall character and setting, as well as its local, regional, national and international importance. Large scale alteration, removal or demolition should be strongly resisted.

High Significance

Attributable to a theme, feature, building or space which is has a high cultural value and forms an essential part of understanding the historic value of the site, while greatly contributing towards its character and setting, as well as its local, regional and national importance. Large scale alteration, removal or demolition should be strongly resisted.

Medium Significance

Attributable to a theme, feature, building or space which has some cultural importance and helps define the character and appearance of the site. These features are generally of local or regional value. Efforts should be made to retain features of this level if possible, though a greater degree of flexibility in terms of alteration would be possible.

Low Significance

Attributable to themes, features, buildings or spaces which have minor cultural importance and which might contribute to the character or appearance of the site. These features are generally of local value. A greater degree of alteration or removal would be possible than for items of high or medium significance, though a low value does not necessarily mean a feature is expendable.

Neutral Significance

Themes, spaces, buildings or features which have little or no cultural value and neither contribute to nor detract from the character or appearance of the site.

Considerable alteration or change is likely to be possible.

Intrusive Significance

Themes, features or spaces which actually detract from the values of the site and its character and appearance. Efforts should be made to remove these features.

The significance plans provide a level of significance for both the physical fabric and the spatial characteristics of internal areas.

4.0 Significance 53

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SIGNIFICANCE

APPENDICES

4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTEREST The viaduct itself cuts through one of the most archaeologically significant parts of Manchester. It was the site of Roman fort that essentially started the development of the city giving the area both its name Castlefield and Manchester. A small area adjacent to the viaduct is protected as a Scheduled Monument, however, the archaeological interest is likely to extend much further than this. There may also be some archaeological interest relating to the developments around the Bridgewater Canal and its associated warehouses. The viaduct itself is relatively well recorded as a structure with good historical information on its construction (Network Rail hold a collection of over 80 construction drawings) there is little further information that may enhance our understanding of the structure, although the date of the replacement overhead bracing is still unclear. Although the track has been removed the ballast has various pieces of metalwork scattered across it (probably from the original overhead support) and this has some limited archaeological interest. The viaduct itself is of low archaeological interest but when considered in the wider context of Roman remains and the canal navigations the area is of high archaeological interest. This value relates to the local archaeological interest of the viaduct itself and the national and international importance of the Roman and early canal infrastructure.

Pieces of scrap metalwork found across the structure, probably the original overhead bracing

Contributors to Archaeological Value • The surroundings of the structure are in a highly sensitive area of Manchester with potential for evidence of early canal warehouses and Roman activity.

•

The deck consists of rubble and ballast. This has some low archaeological value through evidence of the overhead bracing seen in the rubble.

Viaduct - Low archaeological interest

Castlefield area - high archaeological interest

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 54

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SIGNIFICANCE

APPENDICES

4.3 ARCHITECTURAL AND ARTISTIC INTEREST The 1892 viaduct has an architectural honesty and functionality, with its materials and construction loudly proclaiming its industrial use. It epitomises many of the features of the late Victorian period, it is striking, self-confident and dominant. The influence of Violletle-Duc won out over Ruskin by the 1890s ensuring that iron could be used in Gothic structures and should be celebrated, not hidden.

Innovative engineering solutions were proudly displayed and the CLC could not help embellishing their structure with architectural detailing typical of the High Victorian period. The original design intent of the CLC is not known, the Gothic turrets may simply be a reference to the Castlefield area and a nod to its antiquity as a Roman fort.

The structure also has great visual interest due to its sense of scale and how it intereacts and contributes to its wider setting. The built environment beneath the Viaduct is one of contrasts, with the monumental cast-iron columns and fish-bellied track looming over the more human-scale waterways and boats of the earlier canal.

The grit, grime and decay often associated with historic industrial structures is one characteristic of the space, although the quiet cobbled streets and reflections in the water also provide a sense of tranquility that is not found elsewhere in the city.

From atop the Viaduct, one gains an impression of the grandeur, affluence and power the Cheshire Line Committee and citizens of Manchester were keen to promote. One has a birds-eye view of unrestrained growth from the 18th century onwards. Robust structures of the Victorian age, such as Manchester Town Hall and Manchester Central vie for prominence with glazed 21st century skyscrapers and squat apartment blocks. From here, the scale of the structure can also be fully appreciated, both in terms of length and width, the structure is larger than it initially appears. The epic scale and impressive structure is a product of its time, designed to impress people and draw attention to the power of steam and Manchester.

It draws on local features in the castellations but it is also a highly incongruous structure much higher and bigger than most of its surroundings. The views of the structure both from it and of it all add to its significance. Although the rust and degrading paintwork are a sign of a lack of maintenance they give the structure a patina and authenticity as an industrial structure that sits within the wider landscape of Castlefield and Manchester. The wider group value of heritage assets also greatly adds to the visual interest. The viaduct is of high architectural and artistic interest as an impressive piece of transport infrastructure with important group value. This level of significance has been attributed as the structure, its design and group value are of national and international significance.

Contributors to the architectural and artistic Interest •

The latticed ‘walls’ of the viaduct, the fish-belly structure beneath the deck and the crenelated drum columns are of high significance.

•

The deck, having lost its tracks and purpose, and poorly repaired in the past, is of low value.

•

The overhead cross beams are replacements, in a different style and are of low value.

•

The brick arches and piers to either end are of medium value.

•

The wider setting of heritage assets is of high significance.

Viaduct - high architectural and artistic interest

‘The cast iron viaducts combining brute strength with romanticism are spectacular features of the landscape around the Bridgewater canal and serve as enduring symbols of the power and majesty of the railway’01 Robina McNeil and Michael Nevell (2018)

01

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

McNeil, R and Nevell, M. (2018) A GUIDE TO THE INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF GREATER MANCHESTER.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 55

The structure crossing the Bridgewater Canal

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SIGNIFICANCE

APPENDICES

4.4 HISTORIC INTEREST The viaduct is an impressive piece of transport engineering and it represents the growing industrial influence of the city of Manchester. It has historical associations with Central Station in Manchester and was built by the CLC, one of longest running rail companies. The site’s location spanning various modes of transport infrastructure gives associative value to the structure and a strong sense of group value. From the Roman fort through to the canal navigations and the earlier railway viaducts around the structure are all of national significance and the 1892 viaduct demonstrates a later phase of this industrialisation of Manchester. The authenticity of the landscape retains much of its former industrial character although the reconstructed Roman fort is somewhat at odds with this. Whilst still a positive contributor the authenticity and accuracy of the Roman remains is questionable. Beyond its physical presence, the Viaduct continues to tell us much about past human experiences, activity and values. The archival collection of Network Rail offers fascinating insight into the construction of the structure and there is much more to be learned from an engineering perspective. We know about the company who commissioned the Viaduct, CLC, their chief engineer, W.G. Scott and the manufacturers Heenan & Froude and M.W. Walmsley & Co. The lives of those who helped turn the blueprints into reality are more opaque. Who were they? How did they live and what motivated them? There is much to be learnt by researching and telling their stories.

‘..it was soon followed by other lines, and many of these cross the Castlefield area on impressive metal viaducts which, when they are reflected in the canal basins below, impart a spectacular aspect to the area.’

Contributors to the historic interest •

Visual connections and setting of other heritage assets and other transport infrastructure.

- DCMS, World Heritage Sites: The Tentative List of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1999)

•

The steelwork lattice by Heenan and Froude is of high significance through association with the contractor.

The viaduct played a part in the construction of the Port of Manchester which would become the third busiest port in the country 02. The viaduct also has historical connections with W.G. Scott, the Chief Engineer of the CLC, which is perhaps of local interest, but more significantly the steelwork was manufactured by Heenan and Froude a contractor of significant projects worldwide. It is of interest that Blackpool Tower was under construction by the same contractor at the same time as the viaduct. The use of carbon steel in 1892 is also an early example of its use in the world with it becoming commonplace post-1900. The viaduct has high historical value due to its connections with prominent manufacturers, its connections to other iconic structures and its pioneering use of materials making it national significance.

•

The cast iron columns are of medium historic interest.

•

The brick piers are of low historic value.

•

The deck is of low historic value.

•

The overhead bracing is of low historic value.

Viaduct - high historic interest

Castlefield along with Ancoats was on the UK tentative list to become a World Heritage Site in 1999, although it was unsuccessful and has since been removed. Primarily the entry focuses on the group value of the canal network and the Liverpool Road Station although the later rail infrastructure is noted as follows 02

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Ibid

The lattice steelwork by Heenan and Froude

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 56

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SIGNIFICANCE

APPENDICES

4.5 PEOPLE VALUE Although not directly associated with the viaduct, the CLC helped to forge links across the cities of the north west and the southern route between Manchester and Liverpool, which the viaduct sits alongside, significantly reduced journey times making them comparable to those of today. The CLC was also the first to introduce cheap fares between Manchester and Liverpool helping to democratise transport for the masses.

The viaduct as a piece of 19th century transport infrastructure represents industrial capitalism and the global nature of supply chains at that time. It will have facilitated the supply of cotton picked by former slaves in the Caribbean and America to be transported across the rail network to the mills of Manchester.

Contribution to People Value •

Its physical presence when seen from the Castlefield Bowl.

•

Its view when seen from the urban park.

•

The long view of the structure when entering the city from the southern Metrolink line.

Viaduct - medium people value

Crowds gathering at Castlefield Bowl for a music concert

Today the viaduct sits alongside Castlefield Bowl, a major music venue and forms the backdrop to many views around Castlefield and is the main passing point for pedestrians walking to the amenities alongside the canal. Mancunians who live in the south of the city will also be familiar with the viaduct if they commute into the city via Metrolink as the tramline runs alongside the structure framing the first views on entering the city centre. It is little visited by tourists or those outside of the city and the current lack of public access means this value has the potential for enhancement.

A short online survey was undertaken as part of this study targeting members of the Castlefield Forum and the Science and Industry Museum as local residents and businesses. The responses overwhelming see the structure as a positive asset to the area.

Responses describe it as ‘classically Mancunian’ and ‘a defining part of the Castlefield area’. A full breakdown of the survey is included in appendix G. The viaduct has medium people value, it has a great deal of local interest but is not currently of national or even regional importance, however, should the structure find a new use this value is likely to increase.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Extracts of the survey responses when asked if they see the viaduct as a positive or negative asset to the area.

‘Very powerful and iconic structure, a visual reminder of the industrial history of Manchester’ ‘It’s a positive asset that’s linked to the development of the national rail network across the UK and a strong visual representation of Castlefield’s history. This splendid example of fine engineering symbolises Manchester’s resilience, growth and progress on all fronts. It’s one of the sleeping giants that linked key markets’ ‘..features like the viaduct don’t just add character to Manchester, they are Manchester and the north. They are our industrial heritage’

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 57

‘Even in its poor current state the area around and below the viaduct is arguably the most interesting streetscape in Manchester.

Along with the several other bridges and waterways this area is full of character and is such a positive asset that is unique to Manchester.’

‘My grandfather remembers it in the 1940-50s when canal horses use to be stored/kept under the viaduct whilst barges were loaded and unloaded, and his mother made him go and get manure from there for the garden’ ‘It is perhaps the epitome of the Manchester industrial spirit and heritage in this great city and as such, of global significance.’

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SIGNIFICANCE

APPENDICES

The most commonly used words in the survey response. Click the Word Cloud above to see the full survey results

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 58

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SIGNIFICANCE

APPENDICES

4.6 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE The 1892 viaduct is an impressive structure and symbolises the power, wealth and influence of Manchester in the 19 th century.

Today, it forms the backdrop to several views around Castlefield and much of its original industrial setting remains intact. Built by the CLC, it facilitated the movement of construction material for the Manchester Docks and improved the rail congestion entering Central Station. The structure was built by contractors of note Heenan and Froude partly using carbon steel, an early example of its use, alongside their work on Blackpool Tower at the same period (also of steel).

The significance of the viaduct is best understood as part of the group and context of wider assets. It crosses over the remains of the Roman fort with the nearby Roman road and the River Irwell both used for early transport. It passes over the Bridgewater Canal which kickstarted the canal age in 1763 and runs alongside the later Rochdale Canal of 1804. The 1892 viaduct is also 200m away from the Liverpool Road Station which was the world’s first passenger railway station in 1830 and is surrounded by several railway lines and viaducts of different eras up the 20th century Manchester Metrolink station at Deansgate. The collective group value of the assets makes it one of the most significant collections of heritage assets of transport infrastructure in the country, demonstrating a range of transport modes dating back almost 2000 years to which the 1892 viaduct makes a significant contribution. There is an opportunity to bring this structure back in to use in a way that enhances its significance to the people of Manchester. Overall, the Castlefield area has long represented the innovative, industrial heart of Manchester and is, if not unique in its individual components, certainly of the highest heritage interest for its significance as a group and the contribution it makes to our understanding of Manchester at the heart of global

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

industrialisation. From the 1830s railway station to the 20th century Metrolink, each piece of infrastructure contributes to this story, as well as having its own story to tell. The CLC railway has national interest for connecting north-west industrial towns, and by extension, the wider British empire. The 1892 and 1873 Viaducts are an important part of this story and illustrate how quickly technology was developing at the time. It is interesting to note the difference between the adjacent viaducts. The carbon steel of the 1892 Viaduct has suffered more corrosion than the earlier cast iron on the 1873 Viaduct , something examined in structural reports outside of this statement. In 2021, the condition of the 1892 Viaduct has deteriorated. There is great potential for imaginative new proposals to be put forward that would restore the structure to a beneficial new use and return it to its former glory. The viaduct is of high significance as a structure of national and international historic value, high aesthetic interest due to its design and wider group value and considerable public and archaeological value.

Characteristics and features that define its significance •

The monumental scale of the structure.

•

The large round columns and fish bellied deck when seen from below.

•

The lattice steelwork by Heenan and Froude.

•

The castellations.

•

The demonstration of the power and wealth of Manchester and the railway industry in the 19th century.

•

The wider setting and group value of industrial buildings and other transport infrastructure.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 59

The viaduct crossing the Bridgewater Canal

The Viaduct is of high significance for its special architectural and historic interest

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SIGNIFICANCE

APPENDICES

GROUND LEVEL SIGNIFICANCE PLAN Very High High Medium Low Neutral Detrimental

LOW HIGH

This plan is not to scale

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 60

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SIGNIFICANCE

APPENDICES

TRACK LEVEL SIGNIFICANCE PLAN Very High High Medium Low Neutral Detrimental This plan is not to scale

HIGH

LOW

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 61

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

SECTION 5.0 CAPACITY FOR CHANGE The original fabric of the structure is all considered to be of high significance with the material on the deck consisting of ballast and scrap metal of low significance along with the 1950s overhead bracing.

In finding a new alternative use for the structure it is likely the ballast will require replacement or removal. This will result in some low level harm, although should a suitable finish be used as a replacement, this is not considered unreasonable. The overhead bracing is a mid-20th century replacement but it is not out of character with the structure. It’s removal could be considered to facilitate an alternative use, although it has some value demonstrating the later period of alteration and it imitates the existing overhead supports, therefore removal solely to restore back to a previous appearance would cause unnecessary harm that is not outweighed by the restoration and reinstatement.

Any alternative use is likely to require edge protection, which is explored later in this document. Solid barriers would create a disconnect between the viewer and the wider landscape and would be considered overly harmful. Equally a glass barrier may be appropriate, however, consideration to how this modern and shiny installation will appear on the industrial structure. A grille of tight lattices imitating the viaduct design in an industrial material such as corten steel will act as a clearly modern but not out of place addition to the structure allowing visibility through to the wider landscape.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

Initial concepts consider creating a ramp at the west end of the structure allowing a circular route. This will either require the removal of a section of side latticework or a section cut through the deck of the structure. Both proposals will result in a degree of harm to the structure through the loss of heritage fabric, although the structure is formed of repetitive features and this reduces the harm somewhat. Considerable public benefits will be required to facilitate this level of harm and this could potentially be achieved through a scheme that ensures public access and the future maintenance of the structure.

Beyond the harm through loss of fabric, a challenge will be creating an accessible route across what is considered one of the key views of the structure, looking along Duke Street to where it crosses the canal. This viewpoint is where the viaduct’s connection to the wider landscape is felt strongest and minimising harm and clutter at this viewpoint will be important. High quality design and material choice is vital and although a ramp may allow wheelchair access, the long deviation to achieve the required gradient may make this a significant distraction in this location and a lift breaking through the deck of the structure may be a less harmful visual addition.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 62

A longer-term challenge will be managing the industrial patina of the structure and ensuring it doesn’t become overly sanitised. A paint scheme is not only visual but also protective for the iron and steelwork and if left unchecked corrosion will mean the loss of the structure. The industrial character and patina is a positive contributor to the asset and although a full repainting of the structure may be seen as beneficial the structure will become somewhat sanitised. Given the extensive cost involved in repainting and also the loss of industrial character, it may be that a policy of ‘arrested decay’ is considered, involving descaling loose rust and patch painting although restoring an example bay to its original appearance would be considered acceptable. An updated condition survey should inform when the next recommended repainting should take place.

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CAPACITY FOR CHANGE

APPENDICES

PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION Ensuring a heritage-led approach

Maintaining or enhancing setting and key views

•

A conservation rather than restoration approach is considered the most appropriate.

•

The viaduct’s significance relates largely to its connection to the industrial landscape and disturbing or detracting from this should be avoided.

•

Ensure new materials are robust and fitting with the industrial structure and landscape.

•

•

Although a later addition of low significance the overhead bracing tells part of the story of the structure and should not be unnecessarily removed.

Any proposals should seek to maintain the key views of the structure where possible, any alteration should not detract from key views, the character and setting of the site and the wider conservation area.

•

Decisions about change need to be reasonable, transparent and consistent, responding to a clear understanding of the significance of the site, the conservation constraints and design parameters.

•

New standalone buildings or extensions should respond to and relate to the forms, massing, materials, colour palette, proportions, scale, siting and footprints of the existing site and its context.

•

The site is currently vacant and there is an opportunity to create a viable new use for the structure that also maintains the significance embodied within the site. A viable future use should endeavour to seek the conservation and enhancement of heritage values of the site as far as possible.

•

A contemporary approach to new structures may be appropriate if it is demonstrated it will not have an adverse impact on the site or conservation area and they are industrial in character.

•

New development should not replicate historic detail but should instead respond to their context in a contemporary way.

•

An iterative and high-quality design process should be undertaken to ensure heritage values are placed at the heart of the decision-making. An on-going assessment of impact during this process would allow harm to be identified and mitigated as far as possible.

•

As part of any proposal, surviving historic features should be retained or revealed, providing this is not at the expense of a viable scheme.

•

Consultation with the statutory advisors, key stakeholders and the local community should inform the proposed development of the site, undertaken at an early stage as part of an iterative dialogue to also remove risk, forge partnerships, increase understanding and manage public expectations.

•

Proposals that would result in ‘substantial harm’ to a heritage asset or the conservation area should be avoided.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 63

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

LIST OF SOURCES BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

ONLINE SOURCES

DCMS (1999) World Heritage Sites: The Tentative List of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

A Guide To Civil Engineering in Manchester. Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Railway, accessed from http://maceserv.mace.man.ac.uk/apache2-default/trail/xml/Features/msjar.html

Dixon, F, The Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway, (1994 edition) Dunn, Tim (2020). “Great railway bores of our time!”. RAIL. No.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/our-conservation-principles

912. Peterborough: Bauer Media Group. pp. 42–49.

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1292315

Dyckhott, N. (1984) The Chesire Lines Committee: Then and Now.

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/info/511/conservation_areas/972/castlefield_conservation_area/7

Dyckhott, N. (1999) Portrait of the Cheshire Lines Committee.

Frangopulo, N. J., ed. (1962) Rich Inheritance. Manchester: Education Committee; p. 33.

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage-assets/heag180-gpa3setting-heritage-assets/

Gregory, Richard A. (2007). Roman Manchester: the University of Manchester’s excavations within the Vicus 2001–5. Oxbow Books.

https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/education/educational-images/the-giants-basin-potatowharf-manchester-8422

Griffiths, R.P. (1978) The Cheshire Lines Railway.

https://www.scienceandindustrymuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/making-the-liverpool-andmanchester-railway

Hartwell, C, Pevsner Architectural Guides: Manchester, (2001), 215-217

https://blog.scienceandindustrymuseum.org.uk/fanny-kemble/

Hayward, A.C.G. (2014) The Construction of Railway Bridges Then and Now, The International.

Manchester Central Station (G-MEX) roof, Engineering Timelines, http://www.engineering-timelines. com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=603

Jacobs (2010) Castlefield North Viaduct, Manchester BRIDGE REF: MAJ/289 Assessment of Principal Structural Members.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/1758120613Z.00000000037

Journal for the History of Engineering & Technology, 84:1, 59-87.

https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/pdf/10.1680/imotp.1914.16327

Larkin (1988) The Railway Workshops of Britain: 1823-1986.

https://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/joint-railways.html

Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Thursday 22 June 1893.

https://www.railwaygazette.com/infrastructure/electrification-priorities-in-northern-england/40612.article

McNeil, R and Nevell, M. (2018) A GUIDE TO THE INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF GREATER MANCHESTER.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29816152 http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/bridges/castlefield.html

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2019). National Planning Policy Framework.

London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, p. 71.

https://heritagecalling.com/2020/05/14/eight-things-to-know-about-blackpool/ https://www.igg.org.uk/rail/00-app2/joint/clc.htm

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 64

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

APPENDIX A PLANNING SERVICE ADVICE

APPENDICES

PLANNING SERVICE, MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL

INITIAL ADVICE ON THE EXTENT OF A LISTING DESIGNATION Site: Date of advice:

1.0

Castlefield Railway Viaduct from G-Mex to Dawson Street, City Centre.

21st May 2021

Introduction

1.1 That part of the Castlefield Railway Viaduct from G-Mex to Dawson Street is Grade II listed (List Entry Number 1292315). It is noted that ‘G-Mex’ was the name given at the time of listing to the exhibition centre that occupied the former Central Railway Station which is Grade II* listed in its own right (List Entry Number 1270514) and now forms a part of the ‘Manchester Central’ exhibition and conference complex.

1.2 This initial advice is based primarily on a desk based analysis involving, for example, map regression work, modern imaging (available from Google Streetview and Google Earth), and officer knowledge of the viaduct and the area it passes through.

Regard has been had to relevant listing descriptions and while the description for the viaduct identifies the start of finish locations for the listed section these are not, as shall be seen, accurately identified. Not all parts of the viaduct are readily visible from publicly accessible spaces and this initial advice may need to be refined as an when any detailed on-site inspection takes place.

2.0

Initial advice

2.1 Regard should be had to the accompanying plan covering the listed part of the viaduct. The plan is presented in two over-lapping parts covering the western and eastern sections of the listed viaduct.

General extent of the Castlefield Railway Viaduct

2.0 Understanding

Adjacent Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway Viaduct 2.3 The earlier, and lower, Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway (MSJ&AR) Viaduct approaches the Castlefield Railway Viaduct from the southeast.

This viaduct is Grade II listed in its own right (List Entry Number 1200837) and is mostly in red brick. In the vicinity of Collier Street this viaduct splits into two and the Castlefield Railway Viaduct was constructed so as to bridge the arm of the MSJ&AR Viaduct heading north-westwards and to run alongside the arm heading westwards. It would seem that while there may be places in which the two listed viaducts abut, they were - and remain - distinct structures.

Eastern end of the Castlefield Railway viaduct

2.2 Despite the listing description for the viaduct giving a single date of c.1880 for the construction of the viaduct, map regression work shows that the historic part of the viaduct - virtually all of the structure - was built in two distinct linear phases.

(1) The southern half of the viaduct (which is shown on the plan as still carrying railway lines (now used by the Metrolink system)) was in place by an OS map of 1891 so the actual date of construction could have accorded with the c.1880 date. Visible brickwork associated with this half of the viaduct is generally in a red brick. This part of the viaduct served the Central Railway Station and the small adjacent Cheshire Lines Railway Goods Station. As noted above, the former of these still exists and is Grade II* listed while the buildings associated with the latter no longer exist and were approximately where the Convention Centre of Manchester Central stands today.

(2) The northern half of the viaduct (which is shown on the plan as now devoid of

1.0 Introduction

railway lines) was in place by an OS map of 1908. The parapet of this half of the viaduct where it bridges Dawson Street contains a stone plaque reading "C.L.C. 1892" which helps to clarify matters. Visible brickwork associated with this half of the viaduct is generally in a blue engineering brick. This part of the viaduct principally served the Great Northern Railway Goods Station which stood on a separate railway deck on the opposite side of Watson Street from that of the Central Railway Station and Cheshire Lines Railway Good Station.

While the warehouse and street frontage buildings associated with the Great Northern Railway Goods Station remain standing (and are Grade II* and II listed in their own rights under List Entry Numbers 1268529, 1282974 and 1210103) much of the railway deck linking the warehouse to the Castlefield Railway Viaduct have been demolished including as a part of more recent developments. The viaduct as it served the Great Northern Railway Goods Station now effectively ends at the back-of-footway on the south side of Bridgewater Street (not to be confused with Great Bridgewater Street).

Both these linear halves of the viaduct are covered by the listing designation. Both halves also include parallel sections (in the vicinity of Giants Basin) where they have a matching and highly distinctive built form of cast iron drum piers rising to square castellated towers supporting metal lattice parapets. For a distance these metalwork sections of the viaduct separate with a gap between them whereas elsewhere the two linear halves of the viaduct abut each other. The extent of listing would also cover: (a) The boundary walls/gates and stone setted yard surfaces in the vicinity of Bridgewater Street and Collier Street that clearly formed a part of the original viaduct development. (b) Various buttresses and similar structures such as that seen on the southern side of Great Bridgewater Street adjacent to the junction with Lower Mosley Street.

2.4 At its eastern end the viaduct structure effectively continues as a continuous built form across the line of Great Bridgewater Street to form the rail deck/undercroft of the former Central Railway Station. The listing description of the former station makes reference to the extensive station undercroft but without attempting to define their extent. Without a change in physical form from one side of Great Bridgewater Street to the other (other than the bridge over the road itself) the precise dividing line between the listing designations of the viaduct and the former station is unclear. However, the apparent intent was that the listings would be contiguous.

2.5 On this basis it could potentially be argued that the two listings meet at the centre line of the bridge over Great Bridgewater Street to emphasise the interrelationship between the two listed structures but this would leave one half of the

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 65

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

PLANNING SERVICE ADVICE

APPENDICES

bridge as Grade II* and the other as Grade II. It would seem more logical, however, that the extent of the former Central Railway Station would be marked by the end of its undercroft at the back of footway on the north side of Great Bridgewater Street and that this should be used as the dividing line between the listed viaduct and former station.

Also, this would reflect the viaduct listing as being "from G-Mex" and would still reflect the inter-relation of the two listed structures insofar as the spring points of the Great Bridgewater Street bridge would rely on the station undercroft structure for support. On this basis the station undercroft elevation on the north side of Great Bridgewater Street is taken as the extent of listing for the viaduct and the station. This approach also ensures that the historic gate posts at the north side of Great Bridgewater Street adjacent to the junction with Lower Mosley Street would continue to be covered by the station listing designation.

Western end of the Castlefield Railway Viaduct 2.6 The listing description makes specific reference to the listed part of the viaduct ending in the west at Dawson Street and to the blue brick bridge over Dawson Street.

The original width of Dawson Street was significantly widened in the 1990's as a part of the construction of the Inner Relief Route (IRR) highway which followed the line of Medlock Street for a part of its route around the City Centre. The blue brick bridge is part of the northern half of the viaduct and only seen in views along the street from the north. In views from the south it is masked by the red brick earlier phase of the viaduct (not to be confused with the adjacent lower, red brick MSJ&AR Viaduct). As elsewhere, the clean join where the two linerar halves of the viaduct abut is clearly seen by the change in material on the otherwise contiguous underside of the archway. To determine exactly where the listing designation ends it is noted that: (a) Viewed from the north the distinctive arch with stone voussoirs and stone pedimented plaque set within the parapet above bridges over the original line of Medlock Street which is now the south-bound half of the IRR. The northbound half of the IRR was constructed so as to pass through an adjacent viaduct arch to the west which matches the appearance of those arches to the east of Medlock Street in this locality. To the west of the arch over the northbound half of the IRR, the form of the viaduct makes an abrupt change to one of brick piers without brick arches but instead carrying a deep, continuous horizontal metal rail deck and parapet. This would suggest that the listed part of the viaduct would end where this horizontal rail deck and parapet structure starts. (b) Viewed from the south the earlier phase of the viaduct has a continuous form and appearance as it heads away from the IRR in both directions other than brick piers in the parapet demarcating the sides of the arch that bridged over the original line of Dawson Street. Without any obvious break in design on this side it would seem logical to end the listing designation on the same line as for the northern phase of the viaduct described above.

create useable floorspace. The associated internal spaces have not been inspected but the premises (internally and externally) would be covered in the usual way by the listing designation for the viaduct as set down in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.8 The viaduct effectively forms the canal wall of the Rochdale Canal between the canal locks Nos. 90 and 91. Further investigation may be required to confirm the relationship between the listing designations of the viaduct and lock No.90 although this may be readily apparent when on site.

2.9 There are several more recently erected structures that are attached to the viaduct and would, therefore, be covered by the listing designation. These would include, for example: (a) The separate staircase and lift towers (dating from the late 1980's/early 1990's) in the vicinity of the Beaufort Street/Duke Street junction. (b) The vehicle access ramp constructed on part of the width of Trafford Street to provide access from street level to railway deck level. (c) The Metrolink access ramp constructed alongside Lower Mosley Street to allow trams to move from street level to the viaduct level. (d) The Deansgate-Castlefield Metrolink Station and associated works constructed on the viaduct deck. (e) The staircase/lift structure serving the Deansgate-Castlefield Metrolink Station adjacent to the Whitworth Street West/Deansgate junction. (f) The staircase structure serving the Deansgate-Castlefield Metrolink Station adjacent to the Whitworth Street West/Albion Street junction.

Way forward 2.10 As noted, this is an initial and primarily desk-based assessment by the Planning Service of the extent of designation and can be used for discussion when further evidence becomes available by, for example, detailed on-site survey and further research. However, at this time, based on the physical form of the viaduct structure, it seems that the extent of listing identified above would be unlikely to change in any significant way.

2.11 There is, however, also the possibility of seeking a re-assessment of the listing designation by Historic England as a means of providing greater clarity if it is felt this is required. With the more recent ability to specifically exclude features from a listing designation this approach could see features such as those identified in Paragraph 2.9 above being excluded from the designation but these would most likely already be accepted as being of no particular heritage significance in any proposal. Otherwise, at this time, there would seem little particular benefit from a re-assessment in this instance although this is a decision for others to make.

Other considerations 2.7 An archway allows Century Street to pass under the viaduct. The viaduct archway immediately to the east is now occupied by the extension to the separately listed Grade II former lock keeper's cottage at No.6 Century Street (List Entry Number 1247597). The lock keeper's cottage and extension would be covered by the designation for the cottage. The elevation arches elsewhere in the eastern part of the viaduct from Great Bridgewater Street to Collier Street have been historically infilled to

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

21st May, 2021 Drafted by John Whyard (Urban Design & Conservation Team)

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 66

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

PLANNING SERVICE ADVICE

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 67

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

APPENDIX B LIST DESCRIPTION OF THE 1892 VIADUCT

APPENDICES

CASTLEFIELD RAILWAY VIADUCT FROM G-MEX TO DAWSON STREET Heritage Category: Listing Grade: II List Entry Number: 1292315 Date first listed: 14-Feb-1988 Date of most recent amendment: 06-Jun-1994 SJ8297NW 698-1/18/115 04/02/88 MANCHESTER DEANSGATE Castlefield Railway Viaduct from G-Mex to Dawson Street (Formerly Listed as: DEANSGATE Castlefield Railway Viaduct from Central Station, dividing into 2, rejoining an) II GV Railway viaduct. c.1880. Cast iron and wrought iron (?); red brick to east of Duke Street. Runs south-west from former Central Station, then westwards, dividing into two over Castlefield and rejoining west of River Medlock. Cast iron drum piers rising to square castellated towers supporting metal lattice parapet. Castellated brick piers with stone dressings to Gothic style skew bridges over River Medlock and roadways. To east of Duke Street viaduct is of brick with segmental arches and castellated brick piers. At western end a blue brick bridge over Dawson Street.

Listing NGR: SJ 83220 97620 Read it online here >> 1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 68

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

APPENDIX C LIST DESCRIPTIONS

APPENDICES

THE GIANTS BASIN

ROCHDALE CANAL LOCK NUMBER 92 AND CASTLE STREET BRIDGE

Heritage Category: Listed Building

PAIR OF CULVERT ARCHES OVER RIVER MEDLOCK AND ASSOCIATED OVERFLOW CHANNEL

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Grade: II

Grade: II

List Entry Number: 1270858

List Entry Number: 1283003

Date first listed: 20-Jun-1988

Date first listed: 06-Jun-1994

Date of most recent amendment: 06-Jun-1994

SJ8297 NEW ELM ROAD 698-1/18/245 (East side) Pair of culvert arches over River Medlock and associated overflow channel

SJ8397NW ROCHDALE CANAL 698-1/30/364 Lock No.92 and Castle Street Bridge 20/06/88 (Formerly Listed as: CASTLE STREET, CASTLEFIELD “Canal Bridge and over Rochdale Canal adjoining lock walls with 2 pairs.gates”)

Grade: II List Entry Number: 1247068 Date first listed: 06-Jun-1994 MANCHESTER SJ8297 POTATO WHARF 698-1/18/319 (East side) The Giant’s Basin GV II GV II Circular weir. Probably 1765, by James Brindley, for Duke of Bridgewater, altered in C19. Coursed squared sandstone. Circular structure approx.10m in diameter, with 2-course sloped lip. Part of hydraulic system by which the Bridgewater Canal terminus basin exploited the course of the River Medlock, which was diverted through a culvert running from east of Deansgate at Knott Mill to Potato Wharf, and the canal overflow was returned to the river via this weir. Simple stucture of national historical importance. Forms group with canal basin at Potato Wharf (q.v.), and with Castelfield Railway Viaduct (q.v.), and Culvert arches, New Elm Road (q.v.); associated with Floodgate, Deansgate (q.v.).

Listing NGR: SJ8298097679

Pair of culvert arches. Probably 1765, by James Brindley, for Duke of Bridgewater. Coursed squared sandstone. Two low segmental spans at an angle, over the outflows from the River Medlock culvert and the overflow culvert from the Giant’s Basin, that on the right lower and with a plain arch-band. Part of hydraulic system by which the Bridgewater Canal terminus basin exploited the course of the River Medlock, which was diverted through a culvert running from east of Deansgate at Knott Mill to this position, and the canal overflow was returned to the river via a circular weir at Potato Wharf known as the Giant’s Basin. Simple stucture of national historical importance. See also Giant’s Basin, Potato Wharf, and Floodgate, Deansgate.

Read it online here >>

Listing NGR: SJ8294997716

GV II Canal bridge with attached ramp on west side and lock on east side. c.1804, altered. Coursed squared millstone grit, wooden gates. The bridge has a single segmental arch with rusticated voussoirs, keystone and arch-band, a plain band above, slab-wall parapets curved round at the outer ends, and a ramp at rightangles to the north-west corner. Lock of 14-foot width, with pairs of gates at both ends; overflow tunnel with circular brick-lined shaft to south side of Castle Street. The lock is the last in a series of 9 on the extension linking the Rochdale and Bridgewater Canals.

Listing NGR: SJ8311797566 Read it online here >>

Read it online here >>

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 69

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

APPENDICES

REMAINS OF EASTERN WALL OF THE ROMAN FORT

Heritage Category: Listed Building

missing. INTERIOR: not inspected, but reported to have timber beams, and remains of winding gear in roof. Distinctive feature of Bridgewater Canal terminus site, of considerable historical interest.

Grade: II

Listing NGR: SJ8309997526

List Entry Number: 1001953

List Entry Number: 1197778

Read it online here >>

MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE

Reasons for Designation

Date first listed: 20-Jun-1988 MANCHESTER, CASTLE STREET (West side), Merchants Warehouse

BRIDGEWATER CANAL BASIN AT POTATO WHARF Heritage Category: Listed Building

20.06.88

Grade: II

GV II

List Entry Number: 1246959

Former canal warehouse serving Bridgewater Canal terminus, offices from early C21. Dated 1823 on pier between shipping holes; altered, fire-damaged and derelict when surveyed: Brown brick in English garden-wall bond, with some sandstone dressings, slate roof (damaged). Rectangular plan of 6 structural bays occupying whole of west end of north quay. West facade (to the canal) 4 storeys and 1:2:6:2:1 windows separated by former loading slots.

The centre has two semi-circular arched shipping holes rising into the 1st floor, with a cylindrical sandstone pier and responds which have concave caps brought to a square, that in the centre inscribed “1823”, timber lintels and wooden screens in the arches above; the loading slots have doorways at ground floor but are otherwise bricked-up, and those to the right have wooden gabled hoistcanopies; small round-headed windows with glazing bars and tilting casement openings in the lower half, all damaged. Moulded stone cornice with blocking course. The east facade is 3-storeyed, with similar windows and 4 surviving 3-stage loading slots (only partly bricked up) but the top floor of the northern half and its roof are

Date first listed: 06-Jun-1994

1.0 Introduction

Heritage Category: Scheduled Monument

2.0 Understanding

Not currently available for this entry.

History Not currently available for this entry.

Details

POTATO WHARF (East side), Bridgewater Canal basin at Potato Wharf GVII Canal basin. Probably c.1760-5, by James Brindley, for Duke of Bridgewater. Branches off north side of Bridgewater canal near Castlefield terminus. Lined with stone blocks. Forms group with the circular overflow basin slightly to the east (known as Giant’s Basin) and with Castlefield Railway Viaduct.

This record has been generated from an “old county number” (OCN) scheduling record. These are monuments that were not reviewed under the Monuments Protection Programme and are some of our oldest designation records. As such they do not yet have the full descriptions of their modernised counterparts available. Please contact us if you would like further information.

Read it online here >>

Listing NGR: SJ8290497624 Read it online here >>

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 70

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

APPENDICES

MANCHESTER SOUTH JUNCTION AND ALTRINCHAM RAILWAY VIADUCT Heritage Category: Listed Building

* Historic interest: the viaduct forms an important and integral component of the Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Railway, which was one of the country’s earliest suburban railways, and Manchester’s first; helping to bring this form of transport to the hinterlands;

Grade: II List Entry Number: 1200837 Date first listed: 06-Jun-1994 Date of most recent amendment: 26-Feb-2013 Summary Railway viaduct for the Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Railway Company, 1846-9, constructed by David Bellhouse Jnr. Red brick with some small sections of blue brick, sandstone dressings and cast-iron bridges.

Reasons for Designation The Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Viaduct is designated at Grade II for the following principal reasons: * Design interest: it is an impressive 1 3/4 mile long urban viaduct incorporating a series of well-detailed bridges; some with highly decorative Gothic-style ironwork; * Date: it is an early example of a railway viaduct dating from the second phase of railway development - the period from 184150 often referred to as ‘railway mania’ - in which commercial speculation and competition for routes led to the rapid construction of lines and expansion of the railway network;

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

* Group value: the viaduct has strong group value with neighbouring railway structures (both contemporary and later), including two other railway bridges crossing the River Irwell (the 1830 Grade I listed stone bridge and the 1869 Grade II listed girder bridge) and their associated viaducts, the Grade II listed Castlefield Viaduct (c1880), the Grade II listed stations of Manchester Oxford Road (1958-60) and Deansgate (1896), and the Grade II listed former goods offices (c1850-60) and train shed (c1881) at Manchester Piccadilly Station.

History

Junction line, that would be carried along the southern boundary of the city centre on a viaduct and then join the Liverpool and Manchester Railway at Ordsall Lane in Salford, providing access to the lucrative port and city of Liverpool. A branch line, leaving the South Junction line at Castlefield, would also follow the Bridgewater Canal to Altrincham. The Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Railway Act received Royal Assent on 21 July 1845.

300,000 cubic feet of stone (91,440 cubic metres), 50 million bricks and 3000 tons (3048 tonnes) of cast iron were used in the viaduct’s construction. The MSJ&AR line opened on 20 July 1849, although sections of the viaduct were not opened until 1 August 1849. The line ran for 8 1/2 miles from London Road Station via Oxford Road and Deansgate Stations to Altrincham, with the viaduct forming a 1 ¾ mile (2 ¾ km) long stretch: the northern branch terminating at the north-west bank of the River Irwell, and the southern branch terminating at the east side of Dawson Street.

The Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Railway viaduct was constructed in 1846-9 by David Bellhouse junior for the Manchester South Junction & Altrincham Railway (MSJ&AR) Company; Bellhouse was also responsible for laying the track.

Several of the cast-iron bridges situated along the viaduct were built by his son, the engineer and iron-founder, Edward Taylor Bellhouse, along with others by the line’s Chief Engineer, William Baker, and William Cubitt.

Details

The MSJ&AR line is one of the country’s earliest suburban railways and was the first in Manchester. It was started as a joint venture between the Manchester & Birmingham Railway (later the London & North Western Railway, LNWR) and the Sheffield, Ashtonunder-Lyne & Manchester Railway (later the Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway, MS&LR) which operated London Road Station (known as Manchester Piccadilly Station since 1960). The aim was to create an extension of their lines, known as the South

ARCHITECTURE: The viaduct is approximately 1 ¾ mile (2 ¾ km) long and incorporates 224 brick arches that average a span and height of approximately 30ft, and a width of 28ft; many of the arches, particularly those near to Manchester Oxford Road Station and Deansgate Station, have been in-filled and converted into commercial premises. The tallest arches can be found in the section between Manchester Piccadilly and Oxford Road stations where the ground level is lower. A brick parapet has been altered

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 71

LOCATION: The viaduct runs from Manchester Piccadilly Station via Oxford Road and Deansgate, following approximately the route of the River Medlock (crossing it at a number of points), and then branches into two at Castlefield, with the northern branch terminating on the north-west side of the River Irwell, and the southern branch terminating at the east side of Dawson Street.

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

LIST DESCRIPTIONS

APPENDICES

and rebuilt in places and later repairs have been carried out to some of the arches.

The viaduct incorporates a series of predominantly arched, cast-iron bridges by Edward Taylor Bellhouse, William Baker and William Cubitt that cross various streets, the Rochdale Canal, and the Bridgewater Canal. The bridges have an average span of 70ft, although one of Baker’s bridges, which spans the Rochdale Canal has a span of 105ft. A number of the bridges incorporate highly decorative Gothic-style ironwork and detailing and castellated towers (referencing the location of a Roman fort at Castlefield), whilst others, such as a bridge over Gloucester Street are more classically detailed. A bridge over Egerton Street by William Baker was replaced in steel in 1976. Some of the viaduct’s brick arches and bridges are skewed. The Irwell Bridge at the north-west end of the viaduct is of brick with two segmental arches, each of approximately 65ft span, with a central pier and cut-water.

Rusticated stone voussoirs and pilaster strips exist to the central pier and abutments, and the parapet above the western arch incorporates cast-iron panelling.

Following electrification of the line in the C20 the viaduct now incorporates a series of C20 and early-C21 gantries along its course. Also along the viaduct’s course are a number of attached or abutting buildings, most of which are later in date and are un-related to the viaduct’s use; all are excluded from the listing, which relates solely to the viaduct. Manchester Piccadilly Station, Deansgate Station and Manchester Oxford Road Station (the two latter stations being constructed on top of and to the side of the viaduct) are all separately listed at Grade II. Read it online here >>

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 72

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

APPENDIX D GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Historic Building Investigation Report Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

Location:

Castlefield, Manchester

NGR:

Centred at NGR SJ 83220 97620

Project:

Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester:

Internal Ref:

SECL2101

Report No:

SA/2021/42

Prepared for:

Purcells

Document:

Historic Building Investigation Report

Version:

Version 1

Author: Position: Date:

Chris Wild Project Manager May 2021

Copyright:

Copyright for this document remains with the Centre for Applied Archaeology, University of Salford.

Contact:

Salford Archaeology, Centre for Applied Archaeology, LG 19 – 26 Peel Building, University of Salford, the Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT. Telephone: Email:

0161 295 2542 c.m.wild@salford.ac.uk

Client: Purcells

Disclaimer:

Technical Report: Chris Wild

This document has been prepared by the Centre for Applied Archaeology, University of Salford for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be used or relied upon for any other project without an independent check being undertaken to assess its suitability and the prior written consent and authority obtained from the Centre for Applied Archaeology. The University of Salford accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than those for which it was commissioned. Other persons/parties using or relying on this document for other such purposes agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm their agreement to indemnify the University of Salford for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. The University of Salford accepts no liability or responsibility for this document to any other party/persons than by whom it was commissioned.

Report No: SA/2021/42

© Salford Archaeol

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 73

1

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Contents

1. Introduction

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

1.1

Project Background .................................................................................................... 1

In April 2021, Salford Archaeology was commissioned by Purcells to produce a technical heritage gazetteer for Castlefield Viaduct, Manchester (centred around SJ 83220 97620; Plate 1). This will form part of a Statement of Historical Significance for the Grade II Listed structure, being produced by Purcells for the National Trust as part of a scheme to regenerate the disused viaduct into a public open space

2. Gazetteer of Features ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2

2.2

General Description.................................................................................................... 2

2.3

Gazetteer ................................................................................................................... 5

Project Background

The Viaduct was designed in 1890 and built by Heenan & Froude on behalf of the Cheshire Lines Company, being completed by 1893. The large lattice girder bridge represents the earliest known use of carbonised steel within railway bridge construction, and represented a widening of the exiting viaduct from Central Station to Cornbrook to serve the Great Northern Railway’s Warehouse that was under construction on Deansgate by this date.

Plate 1: Google Earth© model view from the north

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

2

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 74

1

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

comprising 53 members in total. The sixth portal from the eastern end of the viaduct has a gantry platform installed with an access ladder on the southern side, and is presumed to be contemporary with the portal replacement.

2. Gazetteer of Features 2.1

The western span of the viaduct has an additional vertical steel panel placed approximately 4m from the western end on both the north and south spans. These comprise a channel-section beam to either face, bolted onto the crossing point of the lattice bars, rather than rivetted, demonstrating them to be of later date. Each houses two short channel-section brackets on the outer east and west faces, parallel with the joints in the adjacent lattice beams, possibly carrying the ends of bars, either fixed or removable, across the viaduct.

Introduction

A site visit was undertaken by Salford Archaeology on 28th April 2021. The on-site recording comprised a brief description of the monument and the compilation of a gazetteer of the individual features that formed the bridge and any phasing that occurred throughout it’s period of use from 1893 to c1960. This was accompanied by a photographic record, taken using a high resolution digital SLR camera. A rapid 3D laser scan was also made of the structure, as it may prove useful to illustrate features within the gazetteer during a future phase of the project, and also to allow the accuracy of existing drawings of the site to be checked.

2.2

The deck is of riveted steel plates exposed in several areas, but generally covered with ballast with a bitumen sealing below ballast. The ballast and c25mm of bitumen waterproofing have been removed in one area to reveal the steel plate sheeting of the deck. The individual sheets are riveted onto joining plates beneath the deck, but additional members on the deck, of both L-section and flat bar are joined with hexagonal bolts, possibly representing later strengthening. Parts of an external lip to the deck can also be seen in places, formed using an L-section edge rail. The deck is perforated by many drainage holes that lead into channels beneath the viaduct. Given the extensive covering of ballast and vegetation, it is presently difficult to establish how many of these are original and how many have been inserted more recently, but in the penultimate eastern span of the viaduct, a row of five round steel grates are visible above hoppers that carried rainwater through the deck into a drain channel below. A further two drain grates were observed within the eastern span, and presumably survive extensively below the ballast, as several drainage channels can be seen on the underside of the viaduct. The channel section web of the lower girder of each span also retained water in the trough formed by its construction, but there appears to have been no mechanism for draining water that accumulated here.

General Description

The northern of the three ‘Castlefield Viaducts’ comprises a high-level lattice girder bridge, largely of carbonised steel and cast-iron construction, with brick and stone approach viaducts. The deck is up to 60’ (18.29m) above ground level, carried on 15 cast-iron columns, for a total length of 1105’ (336.8m). It has an approximate east/south-west alignment, curving gently along its length (Plate 2). Either end of the lattice girder bridge is accessed via an approach viaduct of brick construction, with sandstone copings, carried on round-headed arches. The bridge is of eight double-lattice spans, with an extra span at the eastern end of the southern side, onto the approach viaduct.

Each span comprises a double web of flat steel lattice bars, which vary in width within each span, being wider at the ends and narrowing towards the centre. All joints are riveted into each other and onto a diamond lattice of flat bracing bars joining the two webs onto T-sections beams. The upper girder rail of each span is of I-section steel, and of 20’ (6.10m) length, comprising two channel-section rails forming the web below a 3’6” (1.07m) wide top flange to the upper rail, and a similar width lower flange forming the bottom of the girder. All members are jointed with rivetted plates on the web faces, and both flanges and with three T-section beams bracing the web to the upper and lower flanges. Additional L-section brackets to the upper flange are placed on more irregular spacings.

The deck of the bridge.is carried on solid web, I-section cross beams of 18” (0.46m) width, that are bullnosed at either end, where they project beyond the deck to the flange of the lower girder. Each beam is fish-bellied, to a maximum depth of c4’ (1.22m), with the beams being placed on 13’4” (4.06m) centres. Six longitudinal I section beams span from the base of the top flange, carrying the 6 x 4’ (1.83 x 1.22m) deck plates above, supported by short I-section upstands to the lower flange, riveted to both the beam and the web of the main cross members.

The lower rail of each lattice girder is clasped by the square head of one of the 15 castiron columns. Each column is 10’6” (3.20m) diameter and comprises cast-iron panels around a poured concrete centre. Panels are typically 6’ (1,83m) square, but diminish in height below a 14’6” (4.42m) wide, flat-topped astragal that carries a lattice web tie-girder between opposing columns on either side of the viaduct. The square-section capital has decorative flanges and carries a cap moulding to the external face that masks the junctions between spans. These are also of cast-iron sheet, and have a similarly moulded, decorative capital below crenelations. The column cap is not attached to the lattice girder of the bridge itself, standing proud of the lattice web face. Brick piers at the end of each approach viaduct have similar sandstone mouldings, below a pedimented capping, rather than a crenelation. The brick is of Staffordshire Blue type, largely in Flemish Bond, but with instances of Flemish Garden Wall Bond also observed.

The end of each span comprises four vertical panels above deck level, with two below, all riveted onto the inner face of the lattice beams and braced with T-section vertical and horizontal members, creating the six panels. Within several spans additional flat beams have been riveted onto the inner face of the main inner lattice beams, generally set below deck level and rising up to c1m above, either with angled or pointed upper ends. It is unclear whether these represent original strengthened or later additions, although the rivets appear similar to those used in the original construction.

The two lattice girders of each span are laterally braced across the viaduct by solid-web I-section steel portals, placed on short I section upstands, and representing mid-20th century replacements of original lattice-web girders shown to have been still in place on aerial photographs from the 1940s. These are also placed on 20’ (6,10m) centres,

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

2

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 75

3

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Concrete ducting runs along the northern side of the viaduct, on the inner face of the northern lattice girder, placed on the deck plates and obscured in part by the track ballast.

It comprises a channel section pre-cast base with square concrete flag cappings, and would have housed electrical cables, dating from the mid-20th century. A plastic electrical fuse box was also observed, attached to the northern lattice girder, and was associated with halogen lighting affixed to the outer face, presumably of late-20th century date.

2.3

Late edge protection has also been installed along the majority of the viaduct, against the internal face of both the north and south lattice girders, comprising scaffolding poles and timber planked toe boards. These were probably installed in the early 21st century, to all but the western and two eastern spans, and is shown in the report of 2010. The western span is without any protection, whilst the eastern end of the viaduct has painted aluminium sheet panelling against the inner face of each girder, to approximately the mid-hight of each lattice, and presumably post-dates the 2010 inspection.

Description: Brick-built approach viaduct in Staffordshire Blue brick. Single span with wide round-headed brick arch, that returns into eastern pier and has two diminishing arches within its northern side (Plate). Externally faced in Flemish bond, with a sandstone impost to the external arch and a sandstone string course at deck level. A projecting pilaster at its junction with the bridge is also of Staffordshire Blue bricky, with recessed panels in the outer face above and below a decorative sandstone capital at the level of the bridge deck. Above this, the pilaster narrows, and rises above the lattice girder bridge where it has decorative sandstone corbels to a triangular sandstone pediment.

Several fragments of broken structure are visible on the deck bed including a few remnants of flat steel bars that may have formed part of the lattice beams that originally spanned across the viaduct between the two girders. Large quantities of much smaller undiagnostic fragments are possibly of similar origin, and lie within the ballast throughout the viaduct. One large channel-section beam lying on the surface of the ballast is of unclear function, and may not have formed part of the viaduct structure, instead having been left following the removal of the tracks. One baseplate for track fastening to a sleeper was also observed, and this appeared to have the broken end of a pandrol clip attached, suggesting a date of post-1957.

To the east of the pilaster, the approach viaduct has a 2’ (0.61m) high parapet wall, capped with iron railings, with a short section of wall ats its western end, translating wall height from deck parapet level to that of the height of the lattice girder. This is in similar brickwork, but in English bond, and with a convex quadrant between the two heights, capped with sandstone copings. The upper wall is also recessed from the parapet wall below, with a chamfered brick offset.

Gazetteer

Feature Number: 01 Name: Eastern Approach Viaduct Significance: High

Eastern approach viaduct from the north

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

4

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 76

5

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 02 Name: Western Approach Significance: High Description: The western approach forms part of the adjacent six span contemporary viaduct that continued the new line to the west. This was also constructed in Staffordshire Blue brick with sandstone copings, with a dated ornate arch over the crossing of what is now the A57 Mancunian Way. The datestone reads C.L.C. 1892, demonstrating it to form a contemporary construction to the lattice girder viaduct. The approach lies entirely beyond the study area but has an internal parapet similar to that of the eastern approach on its northern side.

Eastern approach viaduct: detail of decorative pilaster

Western approach viaduct: north internal face

Feature Number: 03 Name: Lattice Girders Significance: High

Eastern approach viaduct: north internal face

Description: The north and south lattice girders for the main element of the viaduct, and are of carbonised steel construction. Each comprises several spans (eight on the northern side and nine to the south), made up of several components, which have been ascribed suffixes within the gazetteer as elements of the larger lattice girder structure.

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

6

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 77

7

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Double-webbed lattice girders forming both sides of the viaduct

Top girder of the north elevation of the viaduct

Feature Number: 03a Name: Lattice Girders: Top Girder Significance: High

Feature Number: 03b Name: Lattice Girders: Bottom Girder Significance: High

Description: The top rail of the lattice girder is formed of carbonised steel beams of 20’ (6.10m) length. It comprises two channel-section beams forming the double web and lower part of the flange, below a 3’6” (1.07m) wide flat plate that forms the top flange. This comprises between one and six plates in thickness, depending on the position within each span, being thicker towards the centre.

Description: The bottom girder of the viaduct is of similar construction to the top girder, but is placed at deck level, obscuring much of the detail. As with the top girder, the flange comprises a separate 3’6” (1.07) wide flat steel sheet, joining the two channel section beams that form the double web. This forms a drainage channel on the outer edges of the viaduct, large sections of which retain water. This was probably unintended in the original construction and may relate to blockage of drains, or build up of sediment preventing flow out of the channels. As with the upper flange of the top girder, the bottom flange comprises between one and six steel plates to give additional strength to the centre of each span.

All members are rivetted together, with the top and bottom rails of the channel-section beam comprising L-section steel bars that are rivetted onto the web. The web and flanges are strengthened at ⅓ intervals (6’8” (2.03m)) with T-section vertical bracing bars (03g), and are jointed together with rectangular fishplates across the web (03h).

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

8

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 78

9

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Detail of flat lattice bars Detail of bottom girder channel, with and without water infilling

Feature Number: 03c Name: Lattice Girders: Lattice Bars Significance: High Description: The main part of the bridge elevation comprises a double web of diagonal lattice bars. These are rivetted to the inner face of the channel section beams of the top and bottom girders, and to four perpendicular lattice bars, all on an angle of 45° and placed at 4’8” (1.42m) centres. Within each span of the viaduct, the lattice bars reduce in width towards the centre, and increase towards the outer edges, from 13” (0.33m) to 5” (0.13m).

North elevation of lattice web, with reducing thicknesses of lattice bars towards the centre of the span

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

10

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 79

11

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 03d Name: Lattice Girders: Inter-web Tie Bars Significance: High

Feature Number: 03e Name: Lattice Girders: L-Section Rails for Tie Bars (03d) Significance: High

Description: The double web of lattice girders are jointed together by a transverse lattice of small flat bars, similarly arranged on a diagonal alignment. Each is 2½” (0.06m) width, and placed on 10½” (0.27m) centres, and rivetted onto alternating faces of an L-section rail (03e) on the rear of the main lattice bar (03c).

Description: 2½” (0.06m) wide L-section steel rails rivetted onto the inner faces of the lattice bars (03c) for attachment of the tie bars between the two lattice webs (03d). They are arranged in an alternating pattern, fixed above and below the projecting rail.

Feature Number: 03f Name: Lattice Girders: Span End Panels Significance: High Description: The curved viaduct is made of numerous straight section spans, placed at an angle to each other to follow the curve of the viaduct alignment. At the end of each span is an end panel that gives stiffness to the lattice bar structure. These comprise four vertical panels above deck level, with two below, all riveted onto the inner face of the lattice beams and braced with T-section vertical and horizontal members, creating the six panels. Gaps between the end panels of each span allow for the differing alignment of spans. The end panels of the northern elevation have identification lettering for each span, ranging from A to G. The panels and gaps between are obscured externally by large cast-iron decorative pilaster (08), placed atop the supporting columns of the viaduct (07)

End panels of lattice web spans on the north elevation

Tie bars (03d) between the two faces of the north elevation, rivetted to L-section rails (03e)

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

12

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 80

13

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 03g Name: Lattice Girders: Top/Bottom Girder Bracing Bars Significance: High

Feature Number: 03h Name: Lattice Girders: Top Girder Jointing Plates Significance: High

Description: The members of the top girders are braces at ⅓ intervals (6’8” (2.03m)) with T-section vertical bracing bars. These are moulded around the L-section joint between the web and flanges of the channel-section beams that make up the girder. They are of 8” (0.20m) width, and are rivetted onto horizontal T-section beams of similar thickness, that brace between the two channel-section beams of the girder to for the lower flange. A similar arrangement on the lower girder is not visible, due to the position of the deck, but the bracing between the two channel-section beams are visible, forming the upper flange of the girder.

Description: Each span comprises several 20’ (6.10m) within the top and bottom girders.

They are jointed with rectangular plates of 2’ (0.61m) width, with three columns of four rivets to the end of each beam web.

Rectangular jointing plates on the web of the top girder (03a)

Feature Number: 03i Name: Lattice Girders: Top Girder L-section and Flat Plates Significance: High

Vertical T-section bracing bars on web of top girder (03a), bolted to horizontal bracing bars forming the lower flange

Description: Additional bracing of the girders was provided at what appear to be irregular intervals by the use of an L-section rail between the web and upper flange, with a pair of flat bars clasping the flange of the lower web immediately below. The upper rail is of 4’ (1.22m) length, with a shorter 2’6” (0.75m) bar below.

Horizontal T-section bracing bars between webs of bottom girder (03b), forming the upper flange

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Bracing rail and plates to upper and lower flanges

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

14

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 81

15

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 03j Name: Lattice Girders: Lattice Bar Fishplates Significance: Medium

Feature Number: 03k Name: Lattice Girders: L-shaped brackets Significance: Medium

Description: Several of the flat lattice bars (03c) have short length of additional bars rivetted to the lower part of the internal web face. Some have chamfered ends, whilst others have simpler angled ends, and all are of thinner section than the original lattice beams and are fixed by better-preserved rivets, suggesting that they formed a fishplate repair at a significantly later date than the original structure.

Description: Two L-shaped brackets of cast-iron or steel are attached to lattice bars of the eastern span of the northern elevation, placed approximately 2m above deck level.

Both are rivetted into the bar, but using larger, flatter-headed rivets than those within the adjacent bar, suggesting they represent an addition, although the use of a rivet rather than a bolt may suggest that this was undertaken relatively early.

Steel fishplate with chamfered head attached to lattice beam of the north elevation L-shaped bracket rivetted onto the inner face of the north elevation

Feature Number: 03l Name: Lattice Girders: Additional vertical panels Significance: Low Description: The western span of the viaduct has an additional vertical steel panel placed approximately 4m from the western end on both the north and south spans. These comprise a channel-section beam to either face, bolted onto the crossing point of the lattice bars, rather than rivetted, demonstrating them to be of later date. Each houses two short channel-section brackets on the outer east and west faces, parallel with the joints in the adjacent lattice beams, possibly carrying the ends of bars, either fixed or removable, across the viaduct.

Steel fishplate with angled head showing thinner section and less corroded rivets

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

16

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 82

17

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Two deck plates butting above beam below, into which they are rivetted Additional panel at the western end of the north elevation of the viaduct

Feature Number: 04b Name: Viaduct Deck: L-Section Plates for Sleepers Significance: High

Feature Number: 04 Name: Viaduct Deck Significance: High

Description: Original engineering drawings for the viaduct show that the rails were laid on longitudinal sleepers on the viaduct, as well as the other bridges within the scheme. In order to provide lateral stability, the sleepers were braced between L-section brackets, rivetted into the deck plates. One full-height, and one broken example were observed within the area of exposed deck plate, strongly suggesting that more such plates survive elsewhere below the ballast.

Description: The deck of the viaduct was primarily formed of ⅜” (0.01m) thick steel plates, but has been sub-divided within the gazetteer into its various component parts.

Feature Number: 04a Name: Viaduct Deck: Deck Plates Significance: High Description: The deck surface is formed of seven longitudinal plates, each of 13’4” (4.06m) length. The central plate is 5’ (1.52m) wide, and is flanked by wider 6’ (1.83m) plates, with the two outer plates of each side of the viaduct being of 5’ (1.52m) width. They are jointed with L-section bars (04b) and flat plates (04c) and were sealed with asphalt waterproofing (04f).

L-section rails rivetted onto deck plate for attachment of longitudinal sleeper

Varying widths of deck plates seen from below

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

18

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 83

19

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 04c Name: Viaduct Deck: Deck Plate flat joining bars Significance: Medium Description: Within the exposed section of deck plates, a transverse flat bar was observed on the surface, spanning two deck plates. It did not form a joint between lengths of deck plates, and was attached with a mixture of rivets and hexagonal blots, suggesting that it formed a repair to the deck.

Corroded edge plate of deck, with attachment for later boards

Feature Number: 04e Name: Viaduct Deck: Drainage Hoppers Significance: High Description: Drainage of the deck was provided at each span junction, with five vertical hoppers through the deck feeding gutters below. Many of the drains are visible only as depressions within the ballast, but a row of five round steel grates are visible above hoppers in the penultimate eastern span of the viaduct, with a further two drain grates exposed within the eastern span. The grates are of 1’ (0.30m) diameter, and placed on 5’6” (1.68m) centres.

Flat bar with bolts and rivets placed across the deck plates

Feature Number: 04d Name: Viaduct Deck: Edge Plates of Deck Significance: High Description: The edge of the deck is formed by an L-section member that forms an upstanding edge to retain the ballast. This was largely obscured by both the bottom girder, and by ballast, although it was visible on its outer face, where it was typically heavily corroded, and was of approximately 6” (0.15m) height.

Grate above drainage hopper in deck plate at span joint

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

20

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 84

21

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 04f Name: Viaduct Deck: Asphalt / Bitumen waterproofing Significance: High Description: The majority of the deck retains a layer of bitumen waterproofing. This is almost entirely obscured by the ballast, and has also been removed in several places for inspection of the deck plates beneath. An inspection of 2010 reported that 25mm of tar survives above the deck plates (Jacobs 2010), and the original engineering drawings for the construction of the viaduct specified ‘½” of asphalt covered with fine sand’. It is unclear whether the majority of the extant covering is original 19th century tar, or represents more modern renewal, replaced during maintenance.

Fish-bellied transverse girders carrying the deck

Exposed bitumen on the deck

Feature Number: 05 Name: Transverse Girders Significance: High Description: The deck of the bridge.is carried on solid web, I-section transverse girders of 18” (0.46m) width. These are bullnosed at either end, where they project beyond the deck to the flange of the lower girder, which carries either end of the beam. Each beam is fish-bellied, to a maximum depth of c4’ (1.22m), with the beams being placed on 13’4” (4.06m) centres.

Bull-nosed outer end of fish-bellied transverse girder

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

22

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 85

23

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 06 Name: Deck Plate Jointing Beams Significance: High Description: Six longitudinal I-section beams span from the base of the top flange, carrying the seven deck plates above. They are supported by short I-section upstands to the lower flange, riveted to both the beam and the web of the main cross members. They are braced by T-section cross beams (06a) across the base of the deck, of apparent similar 8” (0.20m) to those of the upper and lower girders of the double-lattice web spans.

Columns carrying the viaduct

I-section beams carrying the joints of the deck plates, with lateral T-section bracing bars to the deck plates (06a)

Feature Number: 07 Name: Viaduct Columns Significance: High Description: The The lower rail of each lattice girder is clasped by the square head of one of the 15 castiron columns. Each column is 10’6” (3.20m) diameter and comprises cast-iron panels around a poured concrete centre. Panels are typically 6’ (1,83m) square, but diminish in height below a 14’6” (4.42m) wide, flat-topped astragal that clasps the lower flange of the bottom girder of two spans of the double-web lattice girder above. The square-section capital has decorative flanges and projects beyond the external face of the double-web lattice above, carrying a decorative pilaster above (08). The flat upper edge of an astragal to the base of the capital forms an offset to carry the lower flange of transverse tie girders (09), that span between columns across the viaduct.

Detail of column

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

24

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 86

25

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 08 Name: Column Pilasters Significance: High Description: The square-section capital of the column carries a cap moulding to the external face of the viaduct that masks the junctions between spans. These are also of cast-iron, and have a similarly moulded, decorative capital below crenelations. Further crenelation form a chamfer to a narrowed central shaft, that has two indented crosses, representing arrow loops, rather than religious motifs, and presumably designed to reflect the name ‘castle’ within Castlefield. The pilasters are not directly attached to the lattice girder of the bridge itself, standing proud of the lattice web face, but have latterly been attached with steel cables and bolts.

Late steel cables securing free-standing pilaster on its internal face

Feature Number: 09 Name: Cross Tie Lattice Girders Significance: High Description: The columns are braced laterally by substantial I-section lattice-web girders, placed on an offset above an astragal at the base of the column capital, and clasping the shaft of the column above. The girders are 6’ (1,83m) tall at either end, and have a slight concave profile to the lower flange, raising it’s midspan by 6” (0.15m). The web of the beam represents an open casting, but is braced on either face by a lattice of channelsection 4” wide beams. Each flange comprises three lengths, jointed by rivetted plates.

Detail of decorative pilaster atop column

Lattice web Tie Girders spanning between columns across the viaduct

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

26

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 87

27

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 11 Name: Drainage Gutters Significance: High Description: The drainage hoppers within the deck of the viaduct (04e) feed into conical pipes that fall into square-section gutters. Several original examples survive, but others have been replaced in full or in part, having been observed as dangerously corroded during the inspection of 2010 (Jacobs 2010). They feed into cast-iron down pipes that follow the contours of the column of each span on the southern side of the viaduct, except for where the viaduct is adjacent to the earlier viaduct to the south, where a short squaresection length of gutter feeds into the downpipe on the northern face of the earlier structure.

Detail of tie girder

Feature Number: 10 Name: Cross Viaduct Portal Beams Significance: Low Description: The original engineering drawings for the viaduct show overhead bracing beams of double web lattice construction, as do aerial photographs from the 1940s. These were replaced c1960 with solid web steel portal beams. These are placed on 20’ (6,10m) centres, comprising 53 members in total, and whilst they perform a functional role of bracing between the north and south elevations of the viaduct, their unsympathetic design detracts from the visual significance of the viaduct.

Replaced hoppers and gutter, with original downpipes on the southern columns

Late steel portal beams that replaced original lattice beams across the viaduct

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

28

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 88

29

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 13 Name: Concrete Cable Ducting Significance: Low Description: Concrete ducting runs along the northern side of the viaduct, on the inner face of the northern lattice girder, placed on the deck plates and obscured in part by the track ballast. It comprises a channel section pre-cast base, generally with square concrete flag cappings, although several areas had two-piece rectangular cappings. It would have housed electrical cables relating to the electrification of signalling and points, rather than overhead electrification of the lines, which may not have happened prior to its closure.

The ducting dates from the mid-20th century.

Square-section gutter feeding into downpipe of earlier viaduct to the south

Feature Number: 12 Name: Ballast Significance: Medium Description: The majority of the viaduct is covered with varying thickness of railway ballast. This has probably been renewed or augmented at various times, but not only serves to protect the deck, but also gives good visual representation of the viaducts use as a railway. Undulations within the ballast may form an indication of the three track arrangement of the viaduct, but this was difficult to ascertain given the vegetation and disruptions within the levels of ballast.

General view of the viaduct looking east, with possible mounding of ballast between the three tracks

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Concrete ducting for electric cabling

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

30

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 89

31

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 14 Name: Overhead Gantry Significance: Low Description: The sixth overhead portal from the eastern end of the viaduct has a gantry platform installed with an access ladder on the southern side. This is presumed to be of contemporary date to the portal replacement in the mid-20th century

Fuse box and halogen light on the north elevation, with earlier streetlamp attached beneath the deck

Feature Number: 16 Name: Edge Protection Significance: High Description: Late edge protection has also been installed along the majority of the viaduct, against the internal face of both the north and south lattice girders, comprising scaffolding poles and timber planked toe boards. These were probably installed in the early 21st century, to all but the western and two eastern spans, and is shown in the report of 2010. The toe boards are bolted onto the outer edge of the deck plates (04d). The western span is without any protection, whilst the eastern end of the viaduct has painted aluminium sheet panelling against the inner face of each girder, to approximately the midhight of each lattice, and presumably post-dates the 2010 inspection.

Overhead gantry with access ladder on the southern side of the viaduct

Feature Number: 15 Name: Lighting Significance: Low Description: A plastic electrical fuse box was also observed, attached to the northern lattice girder, and was associated with halogen lighting affixed to the outer face, presumably of late-20th century date. Earlier round light fittings attached to the I-section deck plate beams (06) beneath the viaduct are probably of mid-20th century date.

Scaffold and metal sheet edge protection on the southern elevation

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

32

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 90

33

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

CASTLEFIELD GAZETTEER

APPENDICES

Feature Number: 17 Name: Vegetation Significance: Low Description: The deck of the viaduct is entirely covered with vegetation. This ranges from short grasses, particularly at the eastern end, to shrubs and sapling trees in the central and western parts. These appear to be managed to some degree, preventing significant root damage to the structure.

Whilst the vegetation detracts from the interpretation of the viaduct as a railway, it does possess an aesthetic value that may lend itself to the future use of the structure.

Broken fragments of lattice bars on the deck of the viaduct

Channel section beam on the deck of the viaduct Scrub vegetation towards the western end of the deck

Feature Number: 18 Name: Detached artefacts Significance: Low/Medium Description: Several fragments of broken structure are visible on the deck bed including a few remnants of flat steel bars that may have formed part of the lattice beams that originally spanned across the viaduct between the two girders. Large quantities of much smaller undiagnostic fragments are possibly of similar origin, and lie within the ballast throughout the viaduct. One large channel-section beam lying on the surface of the deck is of unclear function, and may not have formed part of the viaduct structure, instead having been left following the removal of the tracks. One baseplate for track fastening to a sleeper was also observed, and this appeared to have the broken end of a pandrol clip attached, suggesting a date of post-1957.

Track baseplate discarded on the deck of the viaduct

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

© Salford Archaeology: Castlefield Viaduct Gazetteer, Manchester

34

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 91

35

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

APPENDIX E 1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

APPENDICES

Please note the full archive contained over 80 pages of drawings and only a selection of these are reproduced here. They full set can be viewed at the Network Rail Archives.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 92

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 93

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 94

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 95

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 96

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 97

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 98

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 99

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 100

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 101

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 102

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 103

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 104

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 105

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 106

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 107

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 108

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

1890 ENGINEERING SKETCHES OF THE VIADUCT FROM THE NETWORK RAIL ARCHIVES

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 109

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

APPENDIX F MANCHESTER COURIER AND LANCASHIRE GENERAL ADVERTISER - SATURDAY 6 MAY 1893 ‘IMPORTANT RAILWAY EXTENSION IN MANCHESTER. THE NEW CHESHIRE LINES VIADUCT ‘No more certain or reliable evidence of the increase of business and general progress of any centre of industry can be obtained than that which is afforded by the extensions which take place from time to time of our railway systems.

‘In 1875, it will be remembered that the Central Station in this city, which is jointly used by the Cheshire Lines Committee and the Midland Railway Company, was opened. Previously the Midland Company’s terminus was London-road Station. The establishment of the new Cheshire Lines route to Liverpool led to an arrangement between that Committee and the Midland Railway Company, which resulted in the construction of the new Midland line from Stockport to Manchester and the erection of the spacious Central Station, which has since been used by the two companies as just stated. Two lines of rails were originally made, and to carry them from Cornbrook to the Central Station a huge viaduct was constructed. The two lines were sufficient for the requirements for a considerable time, but the traffic has during the past six or seven years been so great that it was found absolutely necessary to widen the viaduct. In 1888 plans and designs were furnished by Mr. W. G. Scott, chief engineer of the Cheshire Lines. In due course the designs were approved by the Cheshire Lines Committee and the Midland Railway Company, and parliamentary powers to raise the necessary capital and proceed with the work were obtained.

In 1890 the contracts were let, and the big undertaking was commenced.

‘The progress of the work has been watched by those with the habit of travelling over the line to and from the Central Station with great interest, and it is matter for general congratulation that the contracts have been successfully carried out. The result will be to facilitate the traffic, and prevent the delays which have

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

unavoidably taken place in running trains into the station, owing, as already indicated, to the great increase which has taken place the traffic. As a matter of fact no fewer than 300 trains have passed over the two lines of rails every 18 hours for some time past as compared with 120 at the opening of the line. Three new lines have now been added, and it expected that ere long 400 or 500 trains will run every 24 hours from and to the Central Station without the least delay, even in the busiest seasons.

property of the Bridgewater Canal Navigation Company —and crosses the Manchester South Junction main line near Deansgate.

The lattice girder work—which constitutes, perhaps, the leading feature, extends from Duke-street to Dawson-street. At the latter place, the outside plate girder is 178 ft.long. The bridge over the canal has a square span of 61ft., and a skew span of 80ft. Ten lattice girders are employed here, being 8ft. 6in. deep, and 7ft. 7in. wide.

All the bridges are fitted with ½ in. steel floor plates.

‘The viaduct may fairly be described as a triumph of engineering skill. It has been constructed on a principle which makes it almost, if not quite, unique. Some notion may be formed of the nature and importance of the extension from the fact that the total cost has amounted to £250,000. Extensive blocks of buildings had to be demolished to make room for the viaduct, and foundations of great depth and solidity had necessarily to be put in to bear the great mass of iron and steel employed in the building, not to mention the weight of the trains that will pass over it.

‘At Cornbrook there is a bridge with a skew span of 64ft. This is a trough-bridge, having four large girders, the troughs being 7in. deep, and filled with cement. Four of the arches, it may be stated, have each span of 70ft., 22 a span each of 40ft., and 14 a span each of 34ft. ; and one of the bridges has a skew span of 50ft.

To illustrate the magnitude of the work it may mentioned that the cast-iron columns which support the latticed viaduct weigh altogether 2,000 tons ; some 12,500 cubic yards of concrete were used in connection with the foundations, and 1,500 cubic yards of concrete were employed in the arches. About 42,000 cubic feet of stone were used in forming the beds for the cylinders supporting the lattice viaduct. Then it will be interesting know that 24,000,000 of common bricks were used in the arches and foundations, and 6,000,000 Staffordshire blue bricks were employed for facing and buttress purposes. The total weight of iron and steel in the viaduct is about 7,000 tons. Upwards of 6,000,000 rivets were used the construction of the viaduct, and some 600,000 of them were clinched by hydraulic power.

‘The new viaduct carries three new sets of rails from a point near the engine shed at Cornbrook to the Central Station, the distance covered being three-quarters of a mile. There are 56 arches, several girder bridges, and a steel latticed viaduct 370 yards long.

The main girders are supported on 15 cast iron cylinders, each 10ft. 6in. in diameter in the shaft and 13ft. 6in. at the base. The cylinders are embedded in Portland cement, and rest upon the solid rock some 20ft. below the surface of the ground. The longest column is 60ft. high from the ground level to the railway level, and the 20ft. below the surface makes the total length 80ft. The steel latticed girder work extends from Egerton-street to Deansgate, the width being 38ft. There are eight spans in this portion of the work, the widest being 175 ft., undoubtedly one of the largest and finest in England. The lattice girders are 20ft. deep, the cross girders having span of 38ft. with bearers under each rail. In its course the viaduct runs over the Ship Canal wharves, formerly the

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 110

‘Not the least interesting and important fact is that the cost of the work amounted to about £250,000. Great credit is due to the engineering staff of the company, and the contractors for the eminently satisfactory way in which the work has been carried out. Various difficulties of no light character were encountered, and were successfully overcome. In two places the old viaduct had very sharp curves, one being near Dawson-street, and the other

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

MANCHESTER COURIER AND LANCASHIRE GENERAL ADVERTISER - SATURDAY 6 MAY 1893

near the Bridgewater Canal. They were really what are known as S curves. These have been got rid of very skilfully, and the lines are now much straighter than formerly. The improvement has been effected without any interference with the traffic.

‘Another difficulty lay in the fact that in making the excavations the men came upon an old culvert or tunnel constructed in years long gone by, probably for the purpose of diverting the River Medlock when the Bridgewater Canal was made. A thick brick arch was built over the tunnel, and upon this one of the cylinders supporting the viaduct was placed, being firmly embedded in concrete.

‘The contractors for the masonry and brickwork were Messrs. M. W. Walmsley and Co., of Manchester and Southport, and for the steel and ironwork Messrs, Heenan and Froude, of Newton Heath.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

APPENDICES

‘The contracts may be said to have been finally completed on Wednesday, and in the afternoon of that day a pleasing little ceremony took place on the viaduct at the point where it crosses the Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway. This was the fixing and clinching of the last rivet by Mr. W. G. Scott, C.E., and Mr. Heenan. In addition to those gentlemen, amongst those present were Mr. Podmore, Mr. J. Johnson, Mr. A. J. Caufield, Mr. W. Lavarack, Mr. G. Walker, and Mr. J. Ward (of the engineering staff of the Cheshire Lines Committee), Mr. W. Walmsley, Mr. J. Roberts, Mr. H. Lockwood, Mr. W. Kirk (stationmaster, Central Station, Manchester), Mr. Langridge (goods agent), Mr. Collier and Mr. Fowden (permanent way inspectors); Mr. J. Oubridge, Mr. J. Hilton, Mr.J.Bell, Mr.Gilbert, and Mr. Reed. Mr. Onbridge, on behalf of Messrs. Heenan and Froude, presented Mr. Scott with a handsome mahogany case lined with satin, and containing two silver-plated hammers, and two rivets, one gold and the other silver, as a memento of the occasion. A copper rivet was placed in the only remaining slot, and this was duly clinched by Mr. Scott and Mr. Heenan, amid loud cheers. The work of putting down the rails and fixing the signals will be finished in the course of a few days.

The viaduct will then be surveyed by Government inspector, and it is expected that it will be opened for traffic about the close of the present month. Above we give views representing a portion of the latticed viaduct at Cornbrook, and the bridge which crosses Dawson-street.’

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 111

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

MANCHESTER COURIER AND LANCASHIRE GENERAL ADVERTISER - SATURDAY 6 MAY 1893

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 112

5.0 Capacity for Change

APPENDICES

Appendices

APPENDIX G THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It is a striking piece of architecture that forms a massive part of the heritage of Castlefield. It is a beautiful feature.

Definitely a positive asset!!! It’s a huge reminder of the significance that Castlefield and Manchester had in the industrial revolution. It has remained unused for many many years though and could probably do with some tlc. I read something about this viaduct recently that said “When the wannabees have returned to obscurity, it will still boast The X Factor”.

Castlefield is a place of historic significance in Manchester, with the Roman Fort, the canal basin and the viaduct. It was once a great transport hub and I’d argue that it is now one of most significant tourist destinations in Manchester and it has great educational value. The viaduct is a significant part of that - a symbol of Manchester’s, and Castlefield’s, greatness.

It would be great to see it used again and the High Line in New York is a perfect example of how it could be put to use. People have talked about that for years and it would be absolutely wonderful to see it come to fruition!

It is a monument to the city’s industrial past and stunning architecture

In a city undergoing massive regeneration, the viaduct celebrates our heritage and is integral to Castlefield.

All our visitors love it’s uniqueness

Transform it into an urban park/nature haven

Architectural appearance

Positive

The sense of history and its commanding position in the heart of Castlefield. Plus the workmanship.

It is a huge part of the areas industrial past.

Hugely important and fascinating as it is above our heads.

It is part of the fabric of the area and helps make it feel unique.

It would be wonderful if it could be made into a family friendly park in the sky. It would be a wonderful, unique attraction for Manchester.

Love its design, its industrial presence in the area. It’s scale and presence really help define the area.

As above, it’s a real symbol of the areas industrial heritage and helps make the area distinctive. It’s a real positive asset to the area. Those huge columns make a bold architectural statement, the material is industrial and talks of the past. The lattice work at the top is also a distinctive feature of the skyline.

The viaduct is prominent in the view from my flat - it’s one of the reasons I bought my flat. As one of the removal folk said when I moved-in: “You couldn’t find a view that shouted Manchester more” - you’ll find multiple pictures of my view on my twitter feed: https://twitter.com/matthewfoster

I’d like to see the viaduct at least preserved, if it can become something practical and useful which adds to the area that would be a bonus.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Green public space/walk/garden

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 113

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

Historic landmark in the Center of Manchester.

Definitely a positive to Manchester and Castlefield, adding unique architectural features, and character to the neighbourhood and the city.

Much needed safe green-space in Manchester!

Transformation into a unique safe green space. Community space.

The history of Manchester it represents and how it defines the Castlefield neighbourhood as it’s main landmark.

A positive asset 100%. It’s wonderful Victorian design towers over most places your are in castlefield. It’s a central focal point.

Standing under the bridges and on the cobbles takes you back to the Victorian city. It is a link to the past treat stands proud against the modern city.

Maintenance and tuning into a visitor attraction, it must have great views up there of the city and can be a link to other areas of Manchester.

The history and Victorian engineering

It’s a unique structure that is a landmark for the area

It’s the main view from my apartment

Utilise the space for a public area

It is a unique and iconic structure that identifies Castlefield as an area of historic interest.

It is definitely a positive asset to Manchester and Castlefield as it demonstrates Manchester’s place in the UK’s historic Industrial heritage .

It is significant due to its unique and iconic structure and its place in the history of Manchester’s and Castlefield’s important part in the Industrial revolution. It was part of the world’s first steam powered, inter-urban railway designed to transport both passengers and goods, which makes it iconic and an attraction to visitors.

Ideally it would be restored and made safe for people to visit and walk along the viaduct . It would then make an ideal urban park which would attract many visitors to Manchester and Castlefield , just as the one in New York does in the USA.

It’s industrial heritage.

A definite positive if maintained and ideally used.

Its industrual scale and grandeur

The viaduct defines Castlefield. It is a visual demonstration of the areas history and a massively positive asset - but it could be so much more than just an industrial relic.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Apart from being made into a pedestrian walkway, would there be room to include a mini railway as well?

I love walking underneath and being dripped on.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 114

It could be turned into a national asset if the top of the viaduct was made as accessible as its base, The idea that it would be a linear park is so very exciting and would allow visitors to appreciate the whole of the Castlefield Basin from a different perspective.

Surely if they could build a structure like this in 1893, adding some benches and plants and drainage is not beyond the wit of us in 2021.

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It’s a beautiful historic structure that gives a sense of Manchester’s industrial heritage.

It’s positive.

It’s a great sight.

Turn it into a garden like the highline in New York!

Heritage

Positive

Industrial history of the area

Garden proposal and restaurants / bars / cafes in the adjacent buildings (under railway arches) to make Castlefield a place where people want to visit and to help differentiate it from the rest of the City

It ‘s industrial look and the way it strides over the basin

It complements the area, whilst it is vast it doesn’t take over the area

It is part a parcel of the area and the landscape

Full repaint with the key features picked out in other colours.

Make it into a sky walk with full access

It is intrinsic to Castlefield, a powerful and beautiful structure which embodies the City’s industrial past but is itself timeless.

It’s a positive asset because it provides Castlefield with its unique character.

As a long term resident of Castlefield, the viaduct is really part of what I call home.

It would be wonderful to see it brought into use as a garden and event space. I am sure the views from the viaduct are amazing.

Beautiful reminder of Manchester heritage

Positive asset - wonderful to see the craftmenship and how it’s nestled in amongst more modern structures

Its home - we live overlooking the bowl

A safe shared public space that encourages wildlife. It would be. Shame if it becomes overrun with drinkers everytime it’s sunny as they already leave so much mess in the bowl and marina

It’s a positive asset - I think the iron It’s appearance from the ground level and the possibility of it being work contrasts well with the many brick brought into use as a public space structures in Castlefield

n/a

Ideally as a public park with a cafe (but not a bar/club type of space)

The industrial aesthetic with the Castlefield background

Part of the character of my neighbourhood, my apartment overlooks it and it’s part of Castlefield’s charm

Using it as a feature, like a park or place to visit

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

1.0 Introduction

Very positive, it’s fundamental to the area’s character

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 115

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

It is a positive symbol of our industrial It has a commanding presence heritage. over the area and is a major historical landmark for the history of Manchester.

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

When you see it in video/photos you can instantly recognise the location.

It should be maintained and some form of park in the unused railway would prove an excellent way forward - a park would bring it back to use enabling it to be used by both residents and visitors - think the High line in New York. It would then be a functioning part of our city and become a focus for showing how the original industrial city can take what is old and unused from the 19th Century to be useful in the 21st and beyond.

Retained and made accessible to the public for recreational use

Very powerful and iconic structure, a visual reminder of the industrial history of Manchester

Iconic and uniquely castlefield, a positive asset

The shape and part it plays in adding to the landscape of Castlefield.

Definitely positive - depicting the industrial heritage

Provides character to walks in Castlefield and its contrast to the Roman remains

Possibly look at a High Line walk way like New York to include a range of wildlife. Could also then provide opportunities for small businesses/ artists to have small workshops and possibly eating places building on and promoting local made products.

The view

Positive, historic

None, it’s outside my window and above my carpark

Not to used in such a way that the cars below suffer damage due to people above as has happened when youths trespassed up there, it looks like a good idea but protection must be provided

It’s a throwback to great engineering

Positive asset

Industrial heritage

Equivalent to New York High Line. It should be a space people can use

The industrial heritage in a modern urban environment

Positive that it is there, but it’s current condition is rather scruffy!

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Having it open for public use would be incredible, and would really improve Castlefield as a place to live, work and visit.

Failing that, some cosmetic rectification would go a long way!

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 116

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It forms the backbone of the area, and is imposing , a reminder of past engineering and industry.

See above. A positive asset

It’s as significant a landmark as beetham tower, the library, the town hall. Its castlefields (and homes) identity

Kept clean/painted and graffiti free!

The impressive architecture

Massively positive! It’s a beautiful structure that is a reminder of Manchester’s extraordinary industrial past. The juxtaposition of these old metal bridges against a backdrop of skyscrapers is magnificent.

Everyone loves it, it’s a reminder of Manchester’s past and provides an escape from the modern glass buildings.

For the viaduct to become a raised park, planted with all sorts of wonderful plants, providing a raised green space from which to admire the viaducts and the view of the city.

It’s unique and the history deserves to be told

It could be very positive

It’s a structure I pass almost daily and leave close to. So it’ s a strong creature of castlefield for me.

Turn it into a park, like the high line in NYC with lighting, sculptures and public art.

The heritage - such an integral part of the fabric of Manchester and Castlefield in particular!

Hugely positive - it’s part of Manchester!

To reinvent it and put it to productive use, whilst still retaining that history would be incredible - invention and reinvention are both equally Mancunian!

As above - part of the history of the place and the people of Manchester.

Productive use, for all. Non-commercial, as public as possible.

Something for the community as well as a destination.

The external aesthetics signifies the industrial heritage of the area. It is a key inspiration, used in the Pokémon Sword / Pokémon Shield games for their area of ‘Motostoke’ based on Manchester. This design of viaduct is now know worldwide.

Positive. The multiple styles of bridges/ viaducts in such a small area is a wonderful illustration of the progress and changes made through the years.

It is a key inspiration for the design of the bridges used in the Pokémon Sword / Pokémon Shield games for their area of ‘Motostoke’, based on Manchester. This design of bridge is now know worldwide. The attention to detail, especially to the columns, within the game from the original viaduct shows how important and representative of our industrial heritage this type of viaduct is.

I would love to see a park and gardens with in but the external aesthetics kept as close to they currently are as possible

The uniqueness of it. Within it hold the identity of Castlefield

Positive

Something i always appreciate when walking past, and long may it continue

Further appreciation in the sense of love and care

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 117

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It reminds me of home

Plant a garden on the top of the structure to add more nature and wildlife in the area. Footpath to walk through the garden

The structure is a living piece of history in an ever developing area.

Personally, it’s my favourite part of Castlefield. I like how the industrial structure is still standing, in contrast to the new modern skyscrapers in the area.

It is a beautiful reminder of Manchester’s industrial past.

What I love about this area of Manchester is that old and new are side by side and this makes for a beautiful part of the city.

I wouldn’t be able to imagine it without it. It Lots of visitors take photographs and ask questions about would feel very empty. the viaduct. The light that shines through in the morning and evening makes for some spectacular pictures.

It would be great if the viaduct would be accessible. There could be a lovely walkway or green space on top of it. The inner-city is lacking green spaces and space in general. The idea that this could become a green place to escape to would be amazing.

It’s history

Massively positive

I visual wonder but sadly unused.

A walkway and garden.

Architecture

Positive, shows the history of industry in the area

Part of the history of Manchester

For it to remain! And to have a function

Aesthetics and history

Positive

Thee history attached to it

Positive! It appeals to curiosity you see it and want to learn about it

It adds to the character of the lovely area I call home

It should be protected, looked after and any plans made should benefit the community.

Location, heritage

Extremely positive. It is part of the fabric of Castlefield

It is iconic. A symbol of the area and ties us to our heritage

A public park & thoroughfare. Arts & community involvement.

Limited commercial involvement to provide facilities & amenities

I think it’s a hugely positive asset It adds to the area, it’s a bit of history in an area that’s got a load of new builds in it!

Honestly it doesn’t hold much significance but it’s still a lovely part of the area

I think it needs a little bit of a face lift, just to clean it up a bit!

It’s iconic heritage in the city.

Currently just visually nice. Would love to see it get a second purpose so to say.

Would love to have it more green and potentially even an area for foodtrucks to sell their products. To support small businesses post pandemic.

1.0 Introduction

Turn into a public walkway

Positive asset. It’s photogenic and such a clear definition of Manchester’s character.

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 118

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

How beautiful it is. It really makes the area unique

Very positive. It’s so distinctive, you can instantly recognise the area on TV and in films. I think it’s a lovely contrast against all the plastic and glass skyscrapers behind it

Its a sight of home coming in on the train or tram

A park! It’s been talked about and promised for years and there’s so little green space round here. Now especially when we’ve been trapped home it’s becoming more and more important for those of us staying on the area long term.

I like the whole thing , the whole area, I’m a visitor to castlefield annually and was surprised at my own interest to the viaduct , and everything in proximity . I love the history and must buy a book about it .

Positive , potato wharf is steeped in history as is the surrounding area .

I am from Cumbria , I would hate to see things change

I would like the supports to always remain

Piece of history in the middle of modern buildings

Positive asset - many boring modern tower blocks in this area. Having pieces of history like this breaks up this monotony and creates a historical talking point. Many passengers pass this on the way in to town

Piece of history and is close to Science and Industry museum

Made into a public garden/ park space

The history and connection to Manchesters heritage. Also the closeness to the city centre.

It’s a positive asset, suits very well with the warehouses which shows the history of Manchester

The heritage and aesthetic

Very positive, it would be lovely to see it used more as a park area, pop up markets/ bars, etc.

Everyone is impressed by it and love the links to old industrial Manchester

Continue the maintenance but that’s it to the structure, I even like the graffiti! More use of the area would be nicer (parks, pop-ups, etc.) and currently I think it’s a missed opportunity

it’s beauty and the retainment of historical buildings/bridges

positive

I live in castle field so feel that it adds to the feel of the city and respectful to the past

A park in the sky like the Chelsea Hi-line in New York

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

A park with a walkway on top, like the similar bridge in New York. It would act as a very needed green space in Castlefield as well as a great walkway for pedestrians from Trafford into town so people don’t have to crowd along the canal or risk their lives walking down Stretford Road.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 119

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

APPENDICES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

The striking architecture. It’s beautiful and really stands out and speaks to Manchester’s heritage.

Positive. It shows the age and the history of castlefield and Manchester. It makes me think of all the changes the land must have seen over time.

I’ve drawn the viaduct a few times because it’s so striking and beautiful and interesting, it’s a great subject. I enjoy walking and spending time in this area. Even going past on the tram is special.

I would love to see it turned into something like the high line in New York. Having visited there it’s a really interesting way to see the city and this could be Manchester’s version. I would love some green space to contrast the surrounding urban architecture and lack of green space in the city generally. I think this could be a really unique space. Whatever happens, I would like it to be able to be used for castlefield residents like myself.

It is an important part of the area’s industrial heritage.

It has the potential to have a great impact on the area, but at the moment it is just another unused space which serves as a hiding place for nefarious activity to take place undetected - of which there are many in the area. It could be a positive asset if turned into a space open to the public.

Nice feature of the area

Positive asset. It is part of the history!

See above

Park

It is part of Manchester’s heritage.

It’s a positive asset. Manchester is an industrial city and that’s what made it what it is today!

As a resident in Castlefield it’s a prominent feature in the area that makes it such a great place to live

Turning it into a space for public use would be fantastic. It could be a mini version of the High Line in New York

Industrial architecture and history Positive asset definitely add character to the industrial feel of the area

It’s part of the skyline around the castle field area

Park or usable space

It’s industrial charm

Positive asset 100%

N/A

It become more a used area. Social space?

Architecture and potential views from it.

Positive

Historical railway interest

Garden walkway with viewing platforms

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

An urban green space, something along the theme of New York’s High Line

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 120

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It looks really interesting

Positive, it’s a nice relic of older times which Manchester blends nicely with newer buildings etc

Not much but it’s still nice

Tbh I’d love for it to be restored somewhat for public use.

Maybe a big walkway, and depending on how stable it is you could see chairs or temporary bars along it

Represents industry, its presence is dramatic

Positive

Historic landmark

High line, park area

Its asthetic within Castlefield

Positive but it’s under utilised

Represents Manchester’s industrial heritage

Highline style park - Something people can use which is visually appealing from the tram line

The architecture and the history.

Positive. It’s a defining feature of the area and helps us to picture and remember the areas historical heritage.

It’s historical significance is important to me.

Would love to see it renewed as a public space, like the high line in New York has been restored. With nods to its history and heritage.

It’s such a well recognised structure and iconic to the Castlefield area.

It’s a positive asset in my opinion. I just love the mixture of the brick and metalwork in Castlefield. The old and new. The industrial and natural. Without the viaduct, these gorgeous contrasts would not be so apparent.

I can see the viaduct from the windows in my home. It’s a pleasure to have it in my view. I walk under it nearly everyday.

It’s just been part of my life for the last 10 years.

The structure needs to be maintained and enjoyed for years to come. It would be lovely if it could be used in the community, as something other that just something to look at. I know there have been talks in the past about using it as a garden which would be lovely. It would be great to have it to showcase some local artists and sculptors work maybe, also like an outdoor gallery. Or as a community grow your own/pick your own food. Even have some bee hives for local honey.

I don’t know, but I like it!

Positive (Altho could do with a little clean up!)

Not really much, but it’s part of castlefield & I don’t see why we’d get rid of it?!

Cleaned up and kept!

The look

Positive. I love the look and heritage it brings to the area

It’s aesthetically pleasing

Positive, it’s part of the industrial heritage of the area. It’s a beautiful and domineering example of what it is.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Become a park / public space

It defines the areas past

3.0 Historic Background

Preserved, maintained put to use for the local community.

4.0 Significance 121

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

The shape it gives us in the area where there is so much building going ob

It keeps it in line with the heritage of the area and it’s definitely a positive

I think it give us a space and a talking point of the area and is great asset

It would be great as a new social area fully developed to use by residents and Visitors

Important piece of industrial heritage that should be opened up for people to enjoy.

Positive. Very recognisable and adds character.

If transformed to allow public access it could be a real attraction.

Create a garden walk just like the High Line in New York. https://www.thehighline.org/visit/

It’s heritage and adds character

Positive, use what you have, the area is industrial so this is a key asset in relation to the area

It is just a key part of the history and current aesthetic of the area

A park would be great, like the NY Highline!

Loooks cool

Yeah I like it

None

Put a park on it

Heritage, usable and interesting space with fresh perspective in an already saturated enclosed space mainly occupied by bars and pubs. Architectural importance.

Hugely positive. Embraces it’s industrial heritage and identity. Develop and regenerate the space into something usable and sacred for those that live here.

I am interested by it’s cultural importance and industrial heritage.

A sacred and calm space for residents of the city that want a place for quiet reflection. I’d like to see the viaduct transformed into a green space with lots of plants, nature and victorian architecture. This could be a place that promotes picnics, walks, quiet zones, honesty boxes, library. etc.

Architecture and grandeur

Positive, adds depth

Large significance makes me feel at home

Used and protected

The architectural beauty it brings to Castlefield

Immensely positive

It’s emblematic of Castlefield

I think the idea of a skyline park is a superb idea and would be a local and national attraction that would bring jobs to the local area.

The potential for regeneration, gorgeous steel work.

Positive definitely as it intersects with two other bridges at quite a unique position.

I live nearby, I walk there often and in the summer I often see the popularity of Castlefield yet there is little investment or ideas to support the popularity, there is potential to enhance that particular space and introduce more greenery along the canal.

Opened to the public - of course access is limited with opening hours, similar model to the NY overhead park.

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 122

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

APPENDICES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It’s engineering

Positive

Huge

Turned into a cycle superhighway and separate pedestrian route to Salford Quays - NO mixing of wheels and walkers though - very firm on that as pedestrian spaces are being invaded by wheels

Looks good

Very positive. A big part of the industrial history of the area

Very significant

A park

Victorian piece of engineering in our community

It’s clearly recognisable when I see it on the TV. It’s definitely a positive asset

It’s a piece of Mancunian heritage which should be preserved

I would like to see it used as an urban walk way

It looks interesting, and could definitely be put to better use

See above - visitors park under it and risk damage to their Positive because of the way it looks, but I currently have a parking space beneath the cars. viaduct and unfortunately any car that parks there gets covered in debris from the the structure. I don’t currently have a car and I’m struggling to rent the space out because of the damage done to cars. I think that this needs to be fixed as a priority should the viaduct be changed.

A park would be Wonderful. It’s currently being wasted and it could add to its beauty. Just if anything is done please sort out the issue with the debris!

Industrial history

Positive asset we just need to harness its potential

My grandfather remembers it in the 1940-50s when canal horses use to be stored/kept under the viaduct whilst barges were loaded and unloaded, and his mother made him go and get manure from there for the garden

Turn it into a suspended garden &/or cycle path

The character that it adds to castlefield.

Very positive but sad that it is not in use for anything.

No specific significance. I like looking at it!

A publicly accessible park would be wonderful

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 123

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

The visual link with the area’s industrial past

Absolutely a positive asset, both as a beautiful feature and as a historical landmark

It serves as a reminder to us all of how Manchester developed I would love to see the viaduct be usable for pedestrians, as an industrial city. either as a park or a market or some combination of the two.

The views from there would be excellent and it would let people get closer to an amazing piece of history. Manchester also desperately needs more green space in the city centre.

It’s contribution to our industrial heritage

Positive. Living history amongst the modern vibe of the area. An engineering feat to be celebrated

As a resident of historic castlefield. Proud of it’s contribution to the history of the area.

It’s a link to, and reminder of, Manchester’s industrial heritage and also provides helps form the character of Castlefield.

The historical significance is obvious and also it looks great.

It serves as a reminder of Manchester’s Instagram loves it! industrial heritage. It also reminds me of the characteristics of Mancunians - strong, resilient and a little tough around the edges.

Created into a historical walkway, modelled on the New York high line. For recreation plus historic tours for visitors and education. A community social action project. A central attraction that over spills into the immediate area with hospitality and pop up retail Given the general lack of useable outdoor space in Manchester city centre it would be great to see this turned in to a useable, social space. Perhaps some green space, space for traders (food/drink stalls?). Like a mini New York High Line.

Positive The viaduct is an intrinsic link to the cities path that is genuine and unfettered. It should be preserved for future generations as an example of past engineering and innovation

It’s a genuine link to the industrial past of Manchester

Preservation and access

It’s monumental scale, the way it Hugely positive. 19th style and engineering cuts through the City in a way we in a historic crossroads. couldn’t do now - such Victorian confidence!

It’s one of the best parts of Castlefield, makes me feel small and in awe of the builders.

Complete structural overhaul to ensure it’s secure for another century and then a means of safe public access for recreation.

It’s architectural merit

I have a vision for it as the Manchattan High Line. I bore my wife and children about it regularly

An urban garden

1.0 Introduction

Yes

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 124

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

As above, very very positively I have only lived in the area (and in Manchester) for 2 years but I remember this viaduct from being very young visiting Manchester because I remember being so in awe of this bridge that was (to a young lad) also a castle!

I think it’s beautiful and needs to be repaired and protected and given a use for the future

As above

I think a park sounds a fantastic idea

Definitely a positive. I love taking photos Its an iconic structure in castlefield and adds to the history here and there has been recent filming here too for a tv series. It adds character to of this area the area

I love walking around this area and showing my friends and family around this heritage site

To keep this structure as part of the heritage site that is our beloved castlefield.

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

Positive

Preserve it !

Nothing

Negative and a danger

Nothing

Fully restored or taken down

The construction

Negative

None anymore lol bad repair plenty of other examples of construction In use not left to decay and be a drain on funds

Taken down to highlight other highlights of castlefield

The industrial feel

In a city becoming ever more modern, it’s nice to see the mix of old architecture remaining in the mix of the new

Not loads but it looks cool

Maintained, and better use of the space around it

Its structure, which beautifully reflects the industrial heritage of Manchester and its role in passenger rail transport

Definitely a positive asset that should be exploited to best effect

See my first answer. It is a key part of Manchester’s industrial heritage and embraces the overall Castlefield ambience

Restored to its former glory as a showcase and utilised eg New York Skyline type walk and cycleway

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 125

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

It’s imposing, industrial architecture

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

Very much a positive asset

Part of the historical area of Castlefield particularly with its castellated architecture

Made into a green walkway

The viaduct adds hugely to the character of Castelfield and the city centre as a whole the viaduct is one of the most recognisable structures in the city. It is also a wonderful reminder of the industrial heritage the city has, along with the history of passenger and commercial rail in the area. While the viaduct would benefit from a spruce up to remove rust / graffiti, it is a huge asset to the area overall.

The viaduct makes Castlefield famous, friends and family are always impressed by it. The viaduct act as a real landmark often being photographed / filmed.

I would want the viaduct to be maintained for visitors & future generations to enjoy. ANy scheme to keep the viaduct healthy is welcome!

It lets me see a structure that, in so many places has been removed. This structure is important to the “manchester story†and should be signposted from MOSI (it could help bring history alive)

The structure needs to Used and accessible. It is sad to see from the passing tram. It should not be left rot and must be repurposed for the next generation

It is integral to Castlefield and it’s loss It’s is part of the unique heritage of castlefield. The location where, would destroy the Castlefield story within one view, we see the history of transportation. (Road, Canal, Train). It’s construction from iron adds to that heritage statement. (Plus it looks amazing and is such a powerful structure) Historical value

Positive, it’ s iconic of the industrial past and I am a resident of Castlefield. It’s part of my neighbourhood. to the legacy of Britain’s first passenger rail station.

I love the idea of a usable space like a park. My only concern is that it is maintained properly. Let’s face it, if it’s not a nightclub or restaurant MCC and Andy Burhham ccouldn’t give a toss..

The beautiful architecture

Absolutely positive, it visually defines castlefield

Be put to good use and the views taken advantage of. A park would be ideal!

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

It’s a nice reminder of historic Mancunian architecture and is very characteristic of castlefield

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 126

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

Stunning Victorian architectural statement that complements the Victorian architecture and canals.

It is one of the last vestiges of Manchester’s industrial heritage and needs saving from City Council blasé attitude to local development planning. It is a fantastic asset that needs protection and bringing back to life.

It is just a beautiful thing and augments the sense of peace and harmony in Castlefield.

It needs protection and would be ideal for an elevated park, or similar to the High Line in New York (and could potentially be part of a dedicated cycle way superhighway into the city removing the need for cycle lanes on the way to Old Trafford roads

Its Victorian legacy

Positive

A link to Victorian vision and effort

Cleaned and made a real tourist attraction

Homage to Manchester’s industrial past

As with the above, I believe it to be an homage to Manchester’s industrial past.

I think parts are necessary to maintain, however, creating a light and friendly green space that honours the values of a modern European city is essential. Castlefield does this (mostly) wonderfully, and I think it should be replicated for this development!

None in particular, I am just a resident of Castlefield.

Modernised and formed as directed by Bauhaus philosophy.

Function over form. Minimalism. And the ability to create a community.

A reminder of the industrial heritage. Fantastic structure

Positive. Defines the area

Arches, architecture, greenery

Positive, historic architectural asset

Architectural

Architectural view point to maintain, could be a garden and walkway for the people of Manchester and visitors to enjoy create increased connectivity

Its history and construction

A positive asset that reflects the city’s past.

It’s a symbol of the engineering undertook by the country as a whole.

It should become a Highline park, like the one in New York that transformed the unused overhead railway line into a park.

I love the architecture but would love the surrounding area to be more green and picturesque

Mcr is known for its industrial background, I’d love to keep that vibe with the bridge but bring some nature/beauty to the castlefield basin/bowl too

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

Make it accessible

More nature/green:)

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 127

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

I have heard of plans to turn it into a park. I would welcome that. There are far too few green spaces in central Manchester.

It’s architecture - it’s quite beautiful in an industrial way

It adds to the history of the area, when so much has been demolished. But it does need work (which I expect will be significant) to regenerate it given the amount of visible rust

Nothing

Negative, it is rotting & debris falling off it is dangerous

None

Pulled down

It’s impressive size and dominating structure

It is a definitive landmark of the area and is one of the key things that makes Castlefield

It is a destination

Retained, restored and made accessible to the public

Architecture

Positive

It’s historical impact to the locality

Positive

Enhances the whole area

Restored and utilised in some way

Architectural and historical significance

It positively reflects Manchester’s industrial heritage

A significant structure that anchors castlefield bowl and is strikingly beautiful.

The plans to create a bridge park sound spectacular and a fitting conversion.

The area with the water birds and general walking areas

Positive

Keeps the history of the area and is very unique

If a park is planned needs to be family friendly too many areas becoming drinking places for adults when it’s nice weather .

Castlefield bowl, grassed area Liverpool road and St. John’s park. A family friendly park with even a small outdoor gym area would be good to see.

A place to walk to impressive size my son likes looking at it,running and making sounds

Positive its different

As above

I live in the city centre with my 6 year old it would be great to have a place to go to and visit . There are too few outdoor spaces in the city centre the viaduct is used for parking it could be much more

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

High line. Green space. Sculpture walk.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 128

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

The historical value and the workmanship that went into its building. It’s a symbol of the industrial revolution in this area

It’s a positive asset and it should be celebrated

It shows us what fantastic workmanship went into it and is a symbol of a bye gone era so should be kept safe and protected

I would like it to remain and for us to be able to walk along it and fill the area with plants and greenery and create a green space for residents of castlefield

This is a fascinating historic structure that defines the atmosphere of Castlefileds.

This structure adds positive value to the area.

Visitors always find this structure fascinating.

To keep and restore this structure and to find a environmentally sympathetic use for it.

It’s a fantastic piece of engineering from the 19th century that blends beautifully with the local area and should be put to use as a community/green space

Positive - it blends beautifully with the area as Castlefield has a mix of old and modern and it’s such a shame that it’s not put to better use.

I actually wrote a university assignment on this project and made suggestions for green space similar to NY High Line, opportunities for food vendors, an outdoor cinema and other similar events all of which would attract visitors to the local area as well as providing green space for residents like myself.

Use the NY High Line as an example but make it Manchester and if events are run use local vendors where possible.

Victorian architecture

Positive asset - so close to the first passenger railway station, part of the area’s history

Personally I think it is an important representation of the area’s history

Restored, preserved, valued

It’s heritage, design and construction.

A positive asset and even more so if it was turned into a park. This would be a much needed space for people and nature.

The viaduct is very much part of the Castlefield landscape. It’s The viaduct should be preserved because of its historical and a reminder of historical Manchester and Victorian engineering. aesthetic value. It would be a great asset to have it used as a recreational park/ space for the public.

It’s significance of appearance running throughout the castlefield area

If it is used correctly it is a massively positive asset

creates an appearance and recognition of the castlefield area

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 129

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It is an iconic symbol of Manchester, and Manchester’s heritage as the first modern industrial city, the birthplace of passenger rail travel and a global centre for innovation and engineering. It’s abandonment and neglect has been a shameful symbol of decline and mismanagement.

See above.

It is positive. Not just utterly in keeping with Castlefield’s urban heritage park status but emblematic of it.

It should be made into a freely accessible municipal public park. Such places were also born in Manchester and are a part of its innovative heritage as the world’s first modern industrial city. It should be preserved perfectly protecting its original design and features but tastefully incorporating an exciting new green space for local people and visitors to enjoy.

It’s prominence and industrial character

Overall positive but it’s lack of utilisation detracts from this

I feel it should be used in a similar fashion to the High Line in New York. A park, cycleway and a set of small to medium multi use spaces for public use

Its strength of design and its reminder of the past

Positive asset in the complex of bridges; of aesthetic, architectural and historic interest.

Huge significance as a local resident, I’ve walked the area from before its regeneration. It provides interest for visitors, a reminder of our industrial heritage and a great place to walk and relax.

I would like it to be retained, restored and put to good use.

Manchester is a tight city with little space, so utilising this for recreation would be an asset. A high level garden would be perfect.

Size, height, scale, history

Very positive, butch, not pretty

Walking under it is amazing and a bit overwhelming and why is it there?

Walkway across. Could a walk extend to the Wodens footbridge over the Irwell at ground level?

Put a small cafe and heritage shop on the viaduct- use a disused tram to house it.

The history it represents

Positive from its construction but negative in so far as it is allowed to decay

It’s part of the urban landscape

Be retained with a new use

Its heritage and beauty

Extremely positive

The history, architectural design and beauty and variance it brings to the landscape

Preserved and made fully accessible to residents like “The High Line†in New York

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 130

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

Positive. It shows how much energy and Its boldness and although it is determination was used to bring the a functionally ugly structure it railway to Manchester has the charming (almost an afterthought?) embellishment of the castellations to acknowledge that it stands on the site of the Roman fort. It frames the view of the other bridges; some earlier, some later and shows how design and function changed over time, The industrial history, the addition to the skyline, the greenery that’s already on there

It’s hugely positive, it’s an icon of the area

It’s an impressive structure which adds immense character to the area, reminding us of our industrial heritage and the role Manchester played in the industrial revolution

Definitely a positive asset, aesthetically it is interesting and memorable without being an eyesore. It reminds us of Manchester’s industrial history.

Everything it stands for about Manchester’s industrial heritage.

The dynamic uniqueness of its location. And also how this structure and its immediate environment creates a sense of place for a dynamic range of activities.

It’s a positive asset that’s linked to the development of the national rail network across the UK and a strong visual representation of Castlefields history.

This splendid example of fine engineering symbolises Manchester’s resilience, growth and progress on all fronts. It’s one of the sleeping giants that linked key markets robust, it’s connected

heritage

very positive

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It shows the history of transport, canals leading to railways and although no longer needed it reminds us of how dynamic the area would have been in its heyday,

It should be preserved and opened up for visitors to be able to cross it and look more closely. I do not think it should be made into a park or garden because this would need maintenance and could fall into neglect

It’s a visual reminder of our old home, where we first lived with our baby

I would love to see it restored and added to so it is safe to open to the public, in a sustainable manner with a large proportion of green space The viaduct is an interesting and unique feature of Manchester, it could be a big pull for visitors and locals if proper planning and resource was allocated. It would be an ideal location for a light show

It’s unique presence contributes to the Castlefield and Manchester history and current day success as an international city.

To become a space that supports local independent businesses and charities. It’s time for the viaducts latent opportunity for tourism and a leisure to be unleashed and provide much needed open space in our city.

preserved and maintained

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 131

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

APPENDICES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

Great land mark

Positive link to Manchester’s history

It stands as a reminder of the industrial history of manchester

Positive asset - as per my previous answer, it has historic significance. It’s a shame to see it going unused

Open space

Positive for the industrial past, negative that it needs tidying up

It represents the history of the area of castlefield and is a beautiful feature

A hugely positive asset

It is significant for me for adding to the culture of the area through its history

It would be great for it to be used as a park / walkway like the high line in New York

Engineering heritage & historic value to the city

Positive asset - a reminder of the link between industry and the city

Adds to the character of the Castlefield Basin area

Retain the structure as much as possible, with minimal alteration apart from where accessibility can be improved.

Introduce a distinct architectural statement if adding to the existing structure. Introduce a park or local amenity for the local area (ideally not behind a paywall).

It’s part of our unique industrial heritage.

positive - it has a very different kind of beauty

We have seen it from our flat for many years and from the tram - we have always wanted something brilliant to be done with it.

Open as a natural walkway similar to the High Line - trees, plants, coffee stall, benches. Even more reason to come to Castlefieild

It raises the spirits as it’s a part of the history of this great city. It’s stood the test of time

Brilliant asset for the community and a tourist attraction - it dates back to the time of Cottonopolis

It’s a go-to place at the weekend to walk by the canal, have a drink and relax

A walk way - maybe in partnership with the RHS - some exotic plants and somewhere to picnic.

The area with the water birds and general walking areas

Positive

Keeps the history of the area and is very unique

If a park is planned needs to be family friendly too many areas becoming drinking places for adults when it’s nice weather .

Castlefield bowl, grassed area Liverpool road and St. John’s park. A family friendly park with even a small outdoor gym area would be good to see.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

Public gardens for pedestrian/cycle route

Historic significance - proud history of manchester

The plans to turn it into a park sound amazing!! Being able to use this historic landmark in a positive way for the community and for all to enjoy would be brilliant High line style park with open space below

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 132

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

Stunning industrial space

Positive. Iconic, strong and part of Manchester’s industrial heritage

See it regularly and it always interests and moves me

High Line New York style green space

The imposing nature of the architecture and the industrial heritage & iconography of the structure

A positive asset, since it illustrates the industrial heritage, the rail history and the working class roots of the city and the local area. It’s ‘low-key iconic’!

It’s a bit of a local landmark, and provides a nice touch-point to the things listed previously. I love living in Castlefield and this is just one of the many reasons/identifiers that make me love it.

Retain, restore, repair, renew, refresh & repurpose!

It’s magical structure

Negative at mo but could be hugely positive

No significant value

Like the hiline in new york

It’s part of Manchester’s heritage and feels unique.

Positive

It’s a particular attraction to Castlefield and Manchester, and is very atmospheric. I can’t think of anything similar anywhere else in the world.

I would like to see it being brought back into use as a park, similar to the New York High Line. This would add a muchneeded green walking route for both residents and visitors, and help to keep this magnificent structure in use.

It’s imposing architecture and potential.

Definitely positive, it’s iconic and is regularly photographed as well as used as the backdrop for TV and film.

I walk past and admire it every day.

I’ve often thought it would make a brilliant public space similar to the High Line in New York.

Heritage history visual pleasure

Transportation history , unique style

History design and part of the industrial revolution in mcr

Maintained, alternative use, history tours, events

Part of the rich industrial historic landscape of the city that is important for its identity. Visually striking and unique.

Very positive.

As an engineer I can appreciate the effort that went it to creating it and see it very much as a recognisable Manchester landmark much as other cities have aqueducts and bridges that identify them.

It needs to be repurposed so that is has some use and is therefore maintained and preserved. If it could be used as a high level park and walkway that would add another signature element to Manchester which for a major city is rather lacking is major visitor attractions.

Location and the potential for an Ecological corridor.

Positive asset to many commuters.

Personally it has been interesting to look at on my tram journey.

A great focus on an Ecological corridor would be lovely.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 133

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

The architecture and transparency

The 1838 viaduct is definitely a positive asset to the area representing another nod to Manchester’s industrial past. If utilised as an additional green space in the city centre, it would be even better and would cheer up those journeys into town on the tram!

It could be a space in which to relax and take nice walks in the I’d love something like the NY ‘High Line’ which allows urban environment. sustainable travel (walking/cycling) across; seating areas and an abundance of greenery to brighten the location.

heritage , its scale and is unique representation of history at the time

positive

castlefield and all of the industrial relics are a special heritage asset that can not be replicated again

accessibility by foot and cycle for residents and tourists, a vital green corridor for our dwindling flora and fauna

The heritage of Victorian engineering

Positive

I see it every day from my apartment and amazed

Used a walkway/garden area

The heritage of Victorian engineering

Positive

I see it every day from my apartment and amazed

Used a walkway/garden area

Its heritage and engineering architecture links. It is the first thing you really see on the way into Manchester on the train - to me a gateway into the city.

It does add to its historical character but it is completely underused and undervalued.

Its appearance in negative as it needs enhancing and improving for people to use as a social space. Making safe and accessible for all.

I like to look at on the train. I have walked down there a few times and but just so underused and undervalued its is real shame. I like its engineering architecture and heritage associations and cobbles underneath, all worn down and smooth - just think how many people have walked there.

Restored for its architectural and engineering links but the space around and along it to be turned into a public open space which celebrates its past but looks forward with through the use of planting, materials, social events - tackling climate change, social inequality and celebrating diversity of the city of Manchester.

it’s a structural and historical landmark

It is a positive asset and adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield as a standing reminder of Manchester’s industrial beginnings

It’s beautiful and is a prominent landmark in the Castlefield area

I would love to see it used as a park/ local nature reserve

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 134

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

Its historical importance - 130 years old!

Very much a positive asset - if it could be maintained to ensure its longevity and then enhanced for this proposed purpose - there would be another aspect by which the engaging surroundings of the unique setting of Castlefield could be enjoyed.

My balcony overlooks the viaduct - my visitors and I never tire of looking at the views over it. To be able to share it’s historical importance with more people would be really exciting.

Preserve and cherish it so that there is pride in it (no graffiti!) then if possible make it into a New York style walkway.

Its potential.

Generally it adds to the character of the area although the top does appear to be a wasted space.

It is a historical piece of Manchester’s industrial architecture.

A communal outdoor space/gardens similar to other bridge parks in Europe and the US.

It’s historic appearance

Positive, just needs maintaining in terms of paintwork. I think the top should also be used as a picnic area or park or walking area too.

Very photogenic and historic

The top renovated to enable access so people could walk along it for views of the city and to add something else unique to Castlefield.

Its originality of design and iconic status

A tremendous asset but obviously neglected an unusable as it stands

A symbol of the adventurous nature of engineering design of the period

a linear public park or even a winter garden with an ETFE roof would be great.

history

significant visual feature of Castlefield

part of our historical heritage

maintained and restored

Aesthetic and Historic intertwined values.

Massive positive.

It is perhaps the epitome of the Manchester industrial spirit and heritage in this great city and as such, of global significance.

Repaired, restored, reused. An urban park and walkway, animated and perhaps to a small degree commercialised to assist this; cafés, restaurants, bars.. Well lit and surveyed to ensure safety, security and therefore use 24/7/365.

Grandeur and appearance, and historical significance

Positive, historical importance, plus unique appearance and statement

History, appearance, it’s size

Kept and maintained at the very least. Or turned into a publicly accessible space like a park, like the New York High Line

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 135

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It is an iconic piece of railway architecture for Castlefield and Manchester.

Extremely positively but I would love to see I have long admired it it cleaned up and repaired

I would love to see it cleaned up and repaired and opened to the public in some way.

The combined effect of this and the other viaducts & canal basins on the overall look and feel of the Castlefield area.

Very positive (see previous answer).

I love to bring visitors to the Castlefield area, mainly due to the features mentioned above.

Some kind of pedestrian walkway would be brilliant. Cheers.

The unique design compared to most viaducts in the country

It’s massively unique due to its size and design

It creates a unique place, not available or seen anywhere else in the world

The creating of an urban park stretching from the Hilton hotel through to the new area developing around Pomona. This would be a real asset and tourist attraction to the city, with even bars and outdoor activities hosted on the viaduct, to bring revenue to the city and castle field to further create a destination in castle field itself, which in recent years has gone into disrepair

It helps me remember how Manchester as we see it today was largely built by the Victorians!

I would like to see it painted to protect it from further corrosion damange, but also for a high-line park with an exit at both ends. If connected to the Irwell towpath at Pomona island it can provide an amazing walking route to Salford Quays!

The huge columns and the castle- Definitely positive. Go and look in tourist like features shops and see it on postcards, that should tell you everything.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 136

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

The architecture and history - it’s beautiful and should be celebrated as a Manchester landmark.

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

Even in its poor current state the area around and below the viaduct is arguably the most interesting streetscape in Manchester. Along with the several over bridges and waterways this area is full of character and is such an positive asset that is unique to Manchester.

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

The viaduct is symbol of the powerhouse of Manchester’s past. It’s an area which I actively promote to visitors and an area which I spend a lot of time when the weather allows. As a post graduate architect I’m inspired by the viaduct.

I think the viaduct should become a destination in it’s own right and a tourist attraction. The obvious would be something along the lines of the high line in New York but I think the viaduct could do much more for the city - gardens, event space, co-work space, pop-up markets, sport & leisure, etc. (it’s critical that the area beneath and around the viaduct is considered also) Most importantly the viaduct could become the gateway that Castlefield deserves. A sense of place with better links to MOSI, St. John’s & Deansgate embedding the wider area into the fabric of the city.

It’s ghostly vibe, it’s scale of engineering, the opportunity it presents to be positive asset for Manchester.

Heritage, architecture and chsracter

The structure frames the landscape of Castlefield links the city to its industrial past. Great Times at d percussion festival

History, legacy and architecture

Linear Park as long as it ties into destinations. Eg deansggate castlefield and pomona. Replace surface car parks with parks on approach to metrolink create park through the arches to lock 92 cottage replacing another car park. Close Beaufort St and collier St to extend linear park into urban heritage park.

Accentuate the structure with lighting. Again why is so much of Castlefield taken up by car parks.

Its unique steam-punky vibe, and strong connection with Manchester’s industrial past.

Very positive. Adds to the areas heritage feel, wouldn’t be the same without it!

The viaduct is a lure for urban photography & innstagrammers.

The entire structure preserved & restored to be used either as a visitor attraction, park, hospitality attraction or even return to use for rail/metrolink/metro.

High

The connecting car park should be closed with some kind of cafe/visitors centre/community centre built as it gets good sun. There should be a small green space built in the structure.

It’s dominance when you’re stood It’s an undeniably positive asset that should be enhanced through sustainable use, underneath it, how it connects below is looking a little tired now. you with the past.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 137

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

APPENDICES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

the history of the strcture

positive

historycal significance

a park will be a great idea

the beauty of the structure

it is making the area more historical

it represent the past and the future of the city

testored to its glory and made into a green ptomenade

Daily connection with the past

The architecture and fabric are key to the character of Castlefield

I see it daily on my walk into town

Retained and renewed into a green space for us all to enjoy

the sense of history.the strengh and importance of manchester past

by adding history to the area

historical importance

restore and connect the viaduct to castlefield by trasform it into a green avenue for local and visitors

Mix of historic viaducts, size grandiosity

It gives a lot of character to the area, it is very interesting to see, definitely a positive asset

It is a nice structure to see when going for a walk in Castlefield

the upper area should be open to access for the general public, the lower area should be pedestrian only

Appearance, value as an artifact of the industrial revolution

It’s sheer mass

Longevity

Restored, maintained, brought back into public use eg park

Its strength and atmospheric presence

Positive. I cant imagine Castlefield without it.

Before i ever came to Manchester i did an art project on texture and used a photo of it to work from. I actually didn’t put two and two together until a couple of years ago. I loved its strong looming presence before but that was very much added to by the realisation that my awareness of it actually predated my moving to Manchester.

First and foremost stay standing whatever the cost. It is a spectacle to look at. Second order priorities would be to see Manchester from it, however if that’s impractical or someone finds a utilitarian use for it then I’m happy for it just to stay as it is.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 138

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

The columns and ironwork is a defining part of the Castlefield area

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

Positive asset. It’s uniqueness adds to the area and defines Castlefield

It marks Castlefield. To imagine it torn down would be unthinkable

Use by metrolink would be ideal, though I don’t see any viable route for 3CC that could incorporate the viaduct.

Use as a linear park (“high line”) / walkway could work, though it would need to be connected to the Ordsall side of the river in order to generate enough pedestrian traffic. Issues are the proximity to an active tram line, likely low pedestrian usage and inaccessibility to emergency services. This could make it feel unsafe at night, and I don’t know how this could be addressed without a constant police presence

Everything

positive

Beautiful city landmark

Repair, restore and bring back into some sort of use for the public.

It’s so unique - steampunk, dominating and brilliant. And classicly Mancunian.

Extremely positive asset, with the potential to be a major tourist attraction. I’ve travelled a fair bit and I’ve never seen a rail viaduct quite like this.

For me, I believe it could be re-utilised to benefit the city in a major way.

I would like to see the structure used either as A) an extra pair of Metrolink tracks to give more capacity on the network between Cornbrook and the city centre, or B) as a “High Garden” high-line style public park linking the city centre to Pomona and Salford Quays. With options A or B, I’d also like to see a new cycling and walking route embedded on the ground beneath the viaduct, a sort of “Cyclist’s Umbrella” linking Deansgate to Pomona and Salford Quays.

The Metal structures are amazing!!

positive

sense of history

turned into a park

Its aesthetics

massive positive industrial character

a monolith to the industrial revolution, innovation, very ‘Manchester’, iconic

High Line Park! fully repaired and USED

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 139

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

History (in and of itself but also in terms of its wider connection to the history of Manchester).

Potential for the future (especially in terms of further developing the cultural significance of Castlefield).

Absolutely positive

Architectural, cultural and historical merit/significance.

Potential as a local/national asset

Restored, integrated into the local area, and ultimately extended: Transformed into a ‘highline’ park but doing so in a way that connects to the wider city/urban area as a whole (particularly to the docklands area)

Its history and powerful,imposing presence

FOR NOW it lets the place down..

Potentially can enhance it greatly

A real piece of Manchester’s industrial past/history

Retained and used as a some sort of park like area..

Aesthetic, historic and architectural.

conservation, public access/use to ensure its viability and maintenance into the long term.

Its very positive iconic architecture and sense of place it lends to castlefield. It very strongly indexes the other transport features in the area and the faux-crenellations index the roman fort remains the steel structure, the dramatic view from below and afar.

hugely positive

The viaduct is precious to me as a local resident and as a Trustee of local community group Castlefield Forum. It’s an iconic structure and a famous local landmark.

The viaduct is definitely a positive asset to Castlefield. It’s a striking feature, intrinsic to the local landscape. testimony to Victorian engineering and the progress of the Industrial Revolution.

Here at Castlefield Forum, we have held a long-term vision of bringing the viaduct back into use as a public park, not just for the local community but as a destination for Manchester residents and regional, national and international visitors.

We would like to see a sustainable future for the viaduct, making it safe, accessible and an interesting and exciting place to visit. We would like to see it used for health and well-being, cultural events, telling a story of Manchester’s industrial past and to be commercially successful eg with opportunities for local businesses to provide hospitality.

Industrial heritage, and it looks amazing

positive

it’s representative of Manchester’s industrial heritage, and quite unique looking

Repurposed ala the high line in New York

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

it should be turned into a public park, linking to the nearby castlefield carpark by the tram station. similar to the new york highline.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 140

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

At the moment, it’s only possible to appreciate it from below, but it makes a striking addition to the experience of visiting Castlefield, as part of a unique industrial complex.

A positive asset but a bit of a wasted one.

From below most people wouldn’t know what it was or is for.

Part of the industrial landscape.

I love the idea of being able to access it and of it being the site of an urban heritage park. Access (physical, cultural, emotional) is going to be key to its successful reuse.

It’s appearance and the way it adds character to the area.

Without it, Castlefield wouldn’t be the same.

It is uniquely dramatic. Exactly what visitors to the region want to see from Industrial Heritage.

To me, I moved to Manchester from the South of England.

When I first saw the viaduct it was the first time I had encountered this type of urban landscape.

A walkway or hanging gardens, with a cycle path connecting the city centre to Pomona and the Quays.

The industrial heritage this brings up in the area as a whole – a true monument

Positive – that said it could be dramatically improved. Think New York City’s High Line

I live nearby and really like the viaduct. I wish it was open to public to explore.

Open to public, make it accessible to as many people as possible. It would be an exceptional tourist attraction for North West and the UK as a whole.

The beautiful structure and engineering

It’s a hugely positive part of the character of Reminds me of the past and the beauty that engineers used the area, showing the industrial heritage to put into structures

I would LOVE it to be turned into a public park

Its size and the fact that it is made of cast iron. Very different to the other rail bridges around Manchester which are made of brick.

Definitely a positive.

None in particular just hard to image Castlefield without it.

Cleaned up, painted and repurposed for some sort of recreational use.

It’s architectural beauty and it’s potential as an amazing public space.

It’s totally positive and an amazing piece of our industrial heritage.

It’s potential to become an enhanced part of the Castlefield environment.

For it to be developed into a public space and garden.

It’s industrial presence in a modern, progressive city

Positive. It’s part of the city’s history.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

I would like space to be used, to be more user-friendly. Green spaces in Castlefield are often taken up by adults - it would be great if it could be more family friendly.

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 141

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It looks great. It’s a very tangible piece of history that’s easy for everyone to understand and respect unlike, for example, roman ruins that are a little more difficult for the average passer-by to visualize, appreciate, or even notice by comparison. Even small children can marvel at the size of it. Everyone understands the viaduct.

Very positive.

Cultural and historic significance.

I’d like to see it restored.

A beautiful structure, prominently viewed. Adds significantly to the historic character of Castlefield. I love it’s perception amongst the other elevated bridges which currently support the Metrolink and network rail

Very positive. Prominent along the canal paths and attention is drawn to this area from with C.Bowl with views across the water.

Many happy memories exploring Castlefield when younger, including enjoying the historic environment, sitting on the grass (by the wharf), and passing under the arches. This is by far my favourite part of the city and the Viaduct contributes significantly to this environment

Scope to make it publicly accessible. This needs to be done sensitively, but could an elevated walkway work? This would be my preference

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 142

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

It’s beauty; it’s striking look brings a real interest to the area.

Massively positive, features like the viaduct don’t just add character to manchester, they are manchester and the north. They are our industrial heritage.

I’ve been dreaming that the viaduct could be turned into a garden since I have lived here. Well done for taking steps for this to happen. Castlefield is starting to look a bit neglected compared to newer developed areas (not including the high rises on deansgate), this could be the catalyst it needs for a bit of rejuvenation.

I’d like to see a garden similar to the high line in new york. It could start from deansgate tram stop; I would also like to see the temporary units being used by a construction company removed and this space also utilised. Alongside this, I’d like to see the lift to deansgate improved for disabled access instead of the public toilet is currently smells like. Ideally it would be good if the garden could drop down into a lower garden area at some point, but this would obviously need a land owner to give up some land, and so it is unlikely; but perhaps the developers at potato wharf would be willing to have some space to the regency road side of their land. Im sure they could see the draw that could bring to residance. I am an architectural technician by trade, and would be happy to help if any is needed. My work email is oscar@arkilab.co.uk

Manchester Heritage

Positive Asset

Significant place of interest

Park on the viadcut

Its role in Castlefield’s history

It is a great asset to Castlefield but is currently not fulfilling its potential and looks a little sad and overgrown

I love showing visitors around and discussing the elements that combine to create Castlefield’s unique history, and how that has been adapted to the needs of the area today.

This adaptation process has always been done sensitively, to enhance rather than detract from the history of the area. The viaduct could become the icing on the cake of my Castlefield tour!

I love the idea of making the viaduct accessible to the public as a park. It would add so much value as a beautiful space where green space is so lacking, combined with its spectacular views. I would absolutely love to see this go ahead.

Its history, character and architecture

Very positive. It stands as a reminder of Castlefield’s heritage and a dramatic part of the landscape

I believe the world’s first first passenger trains ran along it from Manchester to Liverpool

I would like it to be turned into a public space like a park, maybe with occasional market stalls and a viewing platform with an installation showing the contrast between past and present Castlefield

The unique structure and its affect on the surroundings

A positive - great character and history

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

A park / garden

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 143

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

Marks Castlefield heritage as centre of industrial revolution activity.

Because of of its context it is part of a greater asset

Castlefield is a jewel of historic significance which elevates our city. This viaduct could bridge the past to the future showing the vision and pride such is Manchester.

The garden scheme wod open up a new community asset.

The New York equivalent serves not only the community but attracts visitors to thVity itself. r

I the structure and size. I can’t remember a structure like it

It is an engineering masterpiece

Great presence

A park similar to the Roman gardens

It is a landmark in the city

Absolutely positive

It is an engineering masterpiece

It should be used and celebrated

The impressive architecture and links to Manchester’s industrial heritage.

It is a positive asset to Manchester and the local area. It really enhances the character of Castlefield as a post-industrial area.

It is imperative to Manchester’s post-industrial character and the wider area is so uniquely Mancunian.

Used as a park similar to the High Line in New York.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 144

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

APPENDICES

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

This is one of the most important Positive pieces of Industrial Archeology that exists in Manchester

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

This is a piece of the most historical importance in that the steel /iron railway bridge structure not only stands on a position formerly held by the original Roman fort of Manchester but it spans where there is a visual reference point to where the Bridgewater canal warehouses used to be located. In fact their presence can still be clearly viewed from a position directly beneath the railway bridge arches where the location of the central platform section that separates the twin berthing points where barges once moored to unload their cargoes into the warehouse which was positioned at this location.

In order to keep this structure for posterity it needs to be maintained. This is not happening and unless steps are taken to protect the steel structure from decaying, it will eventually disintegrate. This would be a great shame as the steel architecture is such a powerful and important visual icon.

What is amazing is that these historical foundations have not been removed and remain as a visual link to the past importance of Manchester as a thriving commercial Hub. In many cities where the “progress” of commercial enterprise has bulldozed any reference to such historical landmarks, Manchester has uniquely managed to save such places of historical significance. For years the original station which was the site of the first passenger line in the country to link Manchester and Liverpool lay derelict , but fortunately was not touched by the marching redevelopment programmes that engulf most of our cities. So Manchester is uniquely special in that it possess such an amazing platform of visual evidence of historical archaeological importance located in an area which is cherished by the population of Manchester who possess pride in having the privilege of being able to walk freely to view reminders of the past exploits of commerce and industry as well as being part of an ongoing thriving community. The former Midland train shed of Central Station has fortunately been preserved and the Midland Hotel adjacent remains as part of that historical connection. It is vital that the connecting link railway viaduct bridges that span Castlefield which once were the connecting links to this station are also preserved for posterity.

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 145

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

THE SURVEY RESPONSES

APPENDICES

What do you value most about the 1892 viaduct?

How do you think the viaduct adds to the character and appearance of Manchester and Castlefield? Is it a positive or negative asset?

Heritage and design from industrial era.

Green space and cultural potential

1.0 Introduction

What significance does the viaduct hold to you, your organisation and your visitors?

What would you like to see happen to the structure in the future?

Positive but needs updating to make it useful and relevant.

Important reminder of Castlefield history.

Public space similar to High Line.

Could be very positive if becomes a usable space.

Cultural abs historical significance. It is a stunning feature of the area

This space is perfect for development into a cultural space with green walkway like the high line in New York City.

Perhaps with a weekly market or pop ups and a footpath. It would be very special- appreciated by tourists and local folk.

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 146

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

APPENDICES

[THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 147

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

APPENDIX H IMAGES

APPENDICES

William Green’s plan of Manchester and Salford (1787-1794)

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 148

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

IMAGES

APPENDICES

1848 OS plan of Manchester (surveyed in 1845)

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 149

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

IMAGES

APPENDICES

Slater’s New Plan of Manchester from 1883

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 150

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

IMAGES

APPENDICES

1896 OS plan of Manchester (surveyed in 1894)

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 151

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

IMAGES

APPENDICES

1908 OS County Series of Manchester

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 152

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

IMAGES

APPENDICES

1946 OS plan of Manchester (surveyed in 1938)

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 153

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

IMAGES

APPENDICES

A plan of the proposed Manchester Docks in 1893

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 154

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

IMAGES

APPENDICES

Engineering sketch from 1890 showing the proposed viaduct, part of the archive records of engineering drawings held by Network Rail

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 155

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

IMAGES

APPENDICES

A plan of the CLC estate in 1893 showing the 1892 viaduct Click on the diagram for a full-size view

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Understanding

3.0 Historic Background

4.0 Significance 156

5.0 Capacity for Change

Appendices

www.purcelluk.com