Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

12 articles on this Page


Dewsland Brewster Sessions.

Railway Allies.








GOODWICK BRIDGE. Widening Scheme Rejected. Rebuilding Recommended. At the last meeting of the County Council the Public Works Committee presented the following report of the Surveyor on the pro- posed widening of Goodwick Bridge by the Fishguard Urban Council and Haverford- west Rural District Council:— Sir,—In obedience to your instructions I have carefully considered the two designs prepared for the above work, and beg to re- port as follows The present bridge is a very old and incon- veniently placed one, and only lift wide in the clear of the parapet walls, which are of varying heights of from one to two feet. The approach to the bridge on the Good- wick side forms a sharp turning,while that on the Fishguard side is on the foot of a steep hill, and therefore an element of danger is always present, especially so now, with the great increase of traffic between Goodwick and Fishguard. I may also mention that the roadway leading up to it from Goodwick has been provisionally accepted as a main road. The propositions for widening as shown on the two, would tend greatly to facilitate traffic and to remove the existing dangerous corner, as by the addition a minimum width of about 20 feet between the parapets would be provided. But the materials proposed to be used in the work of the two designs are quite different, and I am, therefore, led to believe that an opinion is asked for as to which may be considered the best for the purpose. No i design shows the widening to be made by means of two roll steel girders of about 22ft. span placed alongside the present bridge with connecting cross girders, and cement concrete filling. Substantial concrete foundations are provided, also wooden piles, thece latter I think may be dispensed with as to all appearances there is absolutely no scour in the stream, and the foundations at this point are presumably of a fair character judging by the state of the old bridge walls. Considering the design as a whole, I am of opinion that it would not be advisable to adopt it for more than one reason, viz., the difficulty imJ.connecting the addition to the present structure, probable unequal depression, and also because about one-third of the iron- work would be exposed to the deteriorating action of the sea air. If adopted, it would be advisable, I think, to add a little to the dimensions of the girders, and the parapet walls made i-ft 6-in. thick and 3-ft 6-in high instead of 12-in thick and 2-ft 6in high. No. 2 Design.— The plan shows the addi- tional width given by extending the arches of the present bridge in masonry, carried on con- crete piers and piles as before mentioned. This would be in my opinion much the better way, provided iron tie rods and washers were pro- vided to tie the old and new portions together. The remarks made when considering the pre- vious design in reference to the piles and .para- pet walls apply to this as well. There is one point I wish to draw attention to when considering the schemes for the widen- ing and improvement of this bridge, and this is, the presence of a crack in one at least of the arches, which may or may not be of vital importance at present, seeing that I have sug- gested iron tie rods to be used. But as the estimated outlay for the proposed work is a big itlm, viz., ^40 for No. i design and £ 210 for extending the arches, I am of op- inion that consideration might be given to an alternative scheme, which I venture to suggest and show on the accompanying sketch plan, for an entirely new bridge to be built on the upper or western side. By so doing, the ap- proaches would be in a better line with the connecting roads, the structure more secure, and full use could be made of the existing bridge during building operation.—I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant. ARTHUR H THOMAS. Assistant County, Surveyor. The Committee reported that after consider- ing the report, it was of opinion that a new bridge be erected, and had decided to refer the suggestion of a new bridge to the Rural and Urban Councils for consideration.