Proceedings.] DISCUSSION ON BRIDGING-OPERATIONS.

127

Discussion.
The PRESIDENT moved a vote of thanks to the Author for his The President.
Paper.
The AUTHORexhibited a number of lantern-slides illustrating The Author.
examples of bridges of the various types considered in the Paper.
Major - General SCOW-MONCRIEFF, R.E., hoped hemight be Major-Genernl
Scott-
allowed to commence his remarks with a statement of a personal Moncrieff.
character. It was more than 40 years since he began his military
career in very close association with the Author’s father, Captain
H. Riall Sankey, who was a cadet at Woolwich with him, served in
theRoyalEngineersfor a number of years, andthenleftthe
Service, to the great regret of his comrades, but to the advantage
of the civilside of the profession, forheknewthatCaptain
Sankey, senior, was a n honoured member of TheInstitution. It
was a matter of great gratification to all who knew him and who
enjoyed his friendship to see that his son was following in his foot-
steps. Some years ago, when he (General Moncrieff) was an
instructor at the School of MilitaryEngineering,hehadthe
pleasure of welcoming the son of his old friend as one of the young
officers who came to the School, and it had therefore been a matter
of considerable interest to him to listen that evening to the Paper
which CaptainSankey,junior,hadpresentedtoTheInstitution.
The subject of military bridges, he need hardly say, was one of great
antiquity. It was notlikeartillery, a matter of comparatively
recent introduction, nor was it like aviation, anaffair of the present
day. The records of campaigns in the past contained descriptions
of how great captains had used military bridges in their operations,
and it was possible from the study of those records to learn many
valuable lessons. For instance, one of the most noted captains of
antiquity,AlexandertheGreat, bridged theIndusat a place
which General Moncrieff knew well, above Attock, by means of a
pontoon bridge, which he constructed with rafts, in much the same
manner that military engineers did a t t h epresent day ; and he trans-
ported his boats across the difficult country between the Indus and
the Jhelum by what was probably the first pontoon-train inhistory.
How Alexander did it General Moncrieff did not quite know, but
it must have been a military feat of no small importance, because
thoseacquaintedwiththat region knew that it was exceedingly
difficult country. Julius Csesar constructed a trestle bridgeacross

Downloaded by [] on [15/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 128 DISCUSSION ON BRIDGING-OPERATIONS [Minutes of

Xajor-General theRhineatBonn in wayswhichwere notaltogetherunlike

Seott-
M ~ ~ ~ those
~ ~ which
~ had
E been
. illustratedby
the
Author. It was un-
necessary forhimtomultiplyinstances of the variousways in
which other great captains, like Gustavus Adolphus and Napoleon,
had utilized military bridges for their operations, except to say that
all those leaders devoted special attention to the subject with which
theAuthor haddealt. It was thereforeveryimportantthat
military engineers should study the subject, and should endeavour to
learnfromthesesoldiers of antiquityboth how andwhento
make bridges. Takingfirstthesubject of pontoonbridges, the
Author pointed outtheadvantages of the specialorganization
of working-parties, and the correlation of the various parts one to
another.That wasa matter of theutmost importance.There-
sulting rapidity of construction was of the greatest value ; and the
training of each man to do his own particular work, independently
of what his fellows were doing, was not only a necessary means to
that end, but hada very valuableeffect in connection withdiscipline.
It wasone of the proudest memories of the South African W a r
that, in the bridging-operations under General Bullerat therelief of
Ladysmith, the pontoon troops of the Royal Engineers carried out
their work under the heaviest fire, and never flinched in the least
degree. But,whilstthoseadvantages wererealized, there was
also the considerable disadvantage of having a somewhat cumbrous
train of vehicles, of animals, and of men attached to an army, with
the possibility of their services notbeingrequired.That was a
matter which the commander of a force had to take very seriously
into consideration intheinitial stages of acampaign. England
had to carry out hermars in different parts of the morld, often under
conditionswhichwerecomparativelyunknownbeforehand,and a
commander had to decide whether he would tdce with hima pontoon
train with all its disadvantages, or whether he would trust to what
might be available at the time for the construction of any bridges
he might require; and adecision of that kind was a veryserious
responsibility. It was for that reason that, in the British Army, a
number of specialcompanies for theconstruction of bridgeswas
no longer a recognized military necessity. Therewerecertain
companies of Engineersequippedwith small bridging-equipment,
who hadnotnecessarilybridgesalonetoconstruct, but had
also othermilitaryengineeringoperationstocarryout.There
wasundertheexistingorganization a bridging-train whichwas
equipped only as far as material was concerned, the personnel being
derived from the general-service companies to which he had alluded.
I n any future campaign the disadvantage would exist that the men

Downloaded by [] on [15/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Procsedings.] CONDUCTED UNDER MILITARY COXDITIOSS. 129
who were thus instructed would not have bridging work as their X,'&]or-General
Suott-
special business, and therefore they would not be able t o carry out Moncrieff.
that work with the rapidity thathad been achieved formerly. It was
thought-and he hoped the expectation would be fulfilled-that in
any such operations the slight delay that might takeplace from that
cause would not be of very serious importance. The Author pointed
out that trestle bridges were, generally speaking, those which were
of thegreatestutility.Theymight, however, be combined with
piles, and for a structure of any permanency no doubt that would
bethemostsuitablemethod.Thetrestlebridge possessed the
disadvantage that in anything like deep water its construction was
a matter of considerable difficulty, owing tothe delaywhich
necessarily took place when wooden frames had to be constructed
in deep or running water. I n considering all the various methods
of constructing bridges, it had to be borne in mind that the British
Army had to carry out its campaigns in distant lands, and some-
timeswithlines of communication of veryconsiderablelength.
For instance, in the Chitral campaign the army had to work across
exceedingly difficult country, very mountainous, and entirely with-
out roads. It had to make its own roads and construct its bridges
as it wentalong, andtheline of communication was of vital
importance for the maintenance of the work of the army in front.
It was thereforeeasytounderstandthatdelaysinconstruction,
and the possibilities of rivers rising, as they frequently did in that
campaign, were matters which should be carefully taken into con-
sideration by those who were responsible for the engineering work
of the Army. The Author also pointed out that the Weldon trestle
was part of the recognized equipment of the pontoon-trains. The
utility of thatparticulartrestlemightnot,perhaps,havestruck
the members, but one point of great importance connected with i t
was that the level of the roadway could be rapidly altered by means
of a verysimpledevice. That had been arrived at after a great
deal of carefulexperimenting,andhethought it had now been
brought t o a highdegree of efficiency. Thesuspensionbridges
which had been alluded to were of the utmost value for mountain
warfare. The principal difficulty connected with suspension bridges
was that a long length of cable was somewhat difficult to transport
onthe backs of pack-animals;and for that reasonsuspension
bridges in the region of the north of India,wheredeepravines
had to be crossed, and where the roads were often simply tracks
around mountain-sides, had frequently been made successfully out
of telegraph-wire for spans up to 200 feet. H e would not go into
the details, but it would be readily understood that one of the most
[THE INST. C.E. VOL. cxc~r.] Is
Downloaded by [] on [15/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 130 DISCUSSION OX BRIDGING-OPERATIONS [Minutes of

MajorGeneral important points to be borne in mind was that the various com-
Scott-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ponent
i ~ parts
f f of
. the improvised cable should take the loadequably,
so asto avoidunduestrain in anyparticularwire.The success
of the variousbridges of that descriptionduringrecentfrontier
campaigns had been remarkable. One of the great disadvantages of
the suspension type of bridge was alluded to in the Paper, na,mely,
oscillation. That was a burning question to which a great deal of
thought had been given, and which had been solved with more or
less success in various ways. Fig. 17 showed one way in which the
desired result had been achieved, according to principles enunciated
byProfessorClaxtonFidler.Anothermethod, suggestedmore
recently by Mr. Whiting, a member of The Institution, was to have
two cables as in Fig. 17,but, instead of passing them over the towers
a t t h e same height a t both ends, one end of a cable passed over its
tower at the full height of the latter, while the other end passed
over its tower at aboutone-fourth of theheight up. It would
beseenthattheparabolathus produced would have itsapex at
about a quarter of the span from either side, the bracing being much
the same as in Fig. 17. The advantage of Mr. Whiting’s plan was
that the two cablescould be put in positionindependently, and
the bracing put in afterwards, whereas the type shown in Fig. 27
waa mostconvenientlymade up before it was putin position,
somespecial arrangementbeingmadeforlaunching it bodily
over the towers. The principle in the two cases was practically the
same-that two cables were used in which every deformation that
might be producedby the passingloadwas met in someway or
another by one or other of the cables. Coming to the question of
cantileverbridges, the Author pointed out the rough methods of
using them in campaigns in mountainous countries, In the Chitral
campaign it was found that considerable economy was effected by
having a tension wire brought back from the apex of the cantilever
over a tower or portal of some sort on the bank, and passed to an
anchorage in rear. Hethoughtthat principlemight be carried
farther in connectionwith field-bridges. H e once hadtomake
a road on the frontier of India through an exceedingly difficult
mountain gorge, a t a long distance from a railway or other means
of obtaining supplies, and in a country where there was nothing in
the way of shelter to be obtained for workmen, and where, therefore,
it was necessary to reduce t o a minimum thework carried out on the
spot. After examining the site carefully he came to the conclusion
that it was only possible t o construct the road bycrossing the gorge
twice,whichentailed bridging it in two places. The sides of the
gorgewereprecipitousrocks,risingvertically, and below was a

Downloaded by [] on [15/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Proceedings.] CONDUCTED UNDER MILITARY CONDITIONS. 131
stream which rose high in times of flood ; the road had therefore ‘tof$;-General
be made at a considerable height above the ordinary water-level in Moncrieff.
order to be safe. One of the ruling conditions was that every com-
ponent part of the bridge should be light enough and short enough
to be carried on the backs of pack-animals. After trying various
expedients, he came to the decision that the best plan would be
to build a cantilever bridge in which there was also a tensional
arrangement. A portal or towerconsistingsimply of rails was
built on each side, to give the necessary height above the roadway,
and an inclined strut was used, which carried a tension member to
the point of the cantilever. The tension member was cross-braced
laterally, SO as to reduce theoscillation of the bridge to the minimum.
The bridge was designed for the heaviest pack-animals, and all its
parts were so arranged that they could be easily bolted together,
the amount of skilled labour required being thus reduced to the
minimum. H e believed that after its erection Lord Kitchener took
a motor-car over the bridge, although it was not designed for that
purpose. H e was not present when that took place, but as far as
he knew no disastrous results occurred. The essential point to be
borne in mind was thatin connection with long lines of com-
munication through
mountainous country it was very often
necessary to send up from a base material which could be rapidly
made upin workshops at the base, and which could be easily
erected when it arrived at the site ; and that was one method
amongmany whereby work designed and constructed in time of
peace might be of a pattern which would beexceedingly useful
intime of war. TheAuthorpointedoutthatthecalculations
i n connectionwithbridgesmust be of the simplest character. It
was not necessary to say much upon that point,because it was quite
obvious that not only were the conditions under which a n officer
might have to work out his calculations very different from those
which existed in time of peace, when the engineer worked in an
oilice surrounded by books of reference, but the fact also had to be
borne in mind that the material with which the military engineer
had to deal was probably of a nature which was unknownto
him, so that he was unaware of the various factors, such as the
modulus of ruptureandother scientific data, which generally
governed engineers’ calculations. TheAuthorhad,heknew,in-
troduced a series of very useful Tables and rules whereby anyone
who took a little trouble could, with comparatively little difficulty,
find quickly the dimensions which it was necessary to adopt in order
to arrive ata result which was at all events comparatively safe and
not unduly extravagant. I n conclusion, he desired to be allowed to
K Z

Downloaded by [] on [15/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 132 DISCUSSION ON BRIDGING-OPERATIONS
[Minutes of

Nnjor-General thank the President and the members of The Institution for per-
soott-
N ~ ~ ~ mitting
~ ~ the~ Paper
B . to be given under such pleasantandinteresting
auspices. It was impossible for him to say how much the engineer-
ing branch of the Army owed to The Institution for the guidance
they had received in connection with many works which they had
to carry out in time of peace, There was hardly a volume of its Pro-
ceedings in which there was not some valuable instruction bearing ’.
upon their daily work. I n permitting the Paper to be given before
TheInstitution,the members had opened the door toanother
branch of knowledge, which concerned the Army especially in time
of war. Army engineers could not afford to lose the advantage they
had gained in connection with their work in time of peace, and they
therefore thanked The Institution most sincerely for having given
the present opportunity fordiscussing the matter.
Major J&r;ey. Major 8. N. HARVEY, R.E., as the Chief Instructor at the School
of Fortifications, where the Author had lately been a very efficient
assistant, desired tomake a few remarksonthesubject.The
bridge designed by Mr. Whiting had been put up at Chatham ona
small scale, and had been found to be a great deal steadier and more
stable than any other type of suspension bridge yet tried in the
Army. With regard to the question of pile-driving, it had always
been a greaf difficulty with military engineers to obtain piledrivers
that were really effective and easy to get at on active service. The
pile-driving engine as known to all civil engineers was a cumbrous
piece of apparatus that requireda great deal of handling, and it was
difficult totransport.TheRoyalEngineershadlately been ex-
perimenting in the field-units to design an efficient pile-driver from
theequipmentcarried i nt h e field, andonehad been recently
designed by a field-unit which answeredthe purpose in view,
namely, the driving of a 10-inch pile to a depth of 3 to 4 feet.’
The pile-driver was designed from the equipment already carried in
the field, entailing no addition to the weightof the company’s equip-
ment, which in war was always the ruling consideration. It was
easy enough to design a pile-driver of a given weight, but it was
very difficult to &etthe Government to consent to that pile-driver
being carried. It was therefore absolutely necessary, if the Royal
Engineers wanted to drive piles-and under certain circumstances
that was essential-to design a pile-driver which, if he might put it so,
would not weigh anything at all ; and that feat had been successfully
carried out by a field-unit in the pastyear. He remembered a case

* Lieut. A. V. T. Robinson, R.E., “ A n Improvised Pile Driver.” The Royul

Engineers JOW~GUE, vol. xvii (191Y), p. 65.

Downloaded by [] on [15/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 Proceedings.] CONDUCTED UNDER NILITARY COXDITIONS. 133
in which a pile-driver had to be put on a floating platform made of Xajor Harwy.
barrels, and every time the monkey went up to the top of the pile-
drivertheraftassumedanalarmingbackward slope. TheRoyal
Engineers had the assistance on that occasion, on the floating plat-
form, of anexpert who repairedallthepiersintheparticular
harbour in which the workwascarriedout,andafter the third
stroke of themonkeyhedecidedhe wouldgo home ! That pile-
driver, mounted on a barrel-pier raft, proved very effective, and the
Royal Engineers only lost the monkey once.
Sir JOHNP. GRIFFITHobserved that hewould notlikethe gii;ir2 P.
discussion t o close withouta wordbeingsaidfromtheCivil
Engineering side. H e wished to express the pleasure it had been
to him to listen to the Paper, in connection with which he con-
sidered thatthe apology atthe commencement was quiteun-
necessary, because his ownexperiencehad taught him that civil
engineershadagreatdeal t o learnfromtheirRoyalEngineer
brethren. As a youngmanhetook a great interest in the text-
booksbelonging to
the RoyalEngineers, and,
after
long
a
engineering life of more than 40 years, he desired to say that the
examples of resourcefulness with which those works were filled had
proved very useful to him, It was when an engineer was engaged
onconstructionalwork,wherethe difficultieswhich surrounded
himseemed tooppresshim,thatheappreciatedsuchteaching
as the Author had given ; and for his own part, and he thought
hemightsafelysayonthepart of TheInstitution,hethanked
the Author sincerely for having brought the subject forward.
Captain H. RIALLSANKEY thoughtthat one of thesalient CaptsinRiall
Sankey.
features of military bridges was the immense difference in design
brought about not by altering the principles governing the design,
but byexaggerating some of them. That fact was referred to in
the Paper; but it was well that the point should be emphasized;
at any rate, it was a point which might usefully be studied by the
youngermembers of TheInstitution.Fromapracticalpoint of
view, it sometimes happened that bridges of a military type had to
be constructed during times of peace, and he desired to give two
examples of that kind, one of which was within his own experience.
I n 1879 one of thewater-gates a t Gibraltarhadto be repaired,
and some other entrance had tobe found for the Spaniards who came
overeverydaywithvegetablesfor the market. The only way of
meeting the difficulty was to build a barrel-pier bridge about150 feet
long.Thematerialavailablecomisted of a number of oil-barrels
and some timber.Thebarrel-pierswereerectedonshoreabout
3 mile away from the site, and had to be towed there in the sea on

Downloaded by [] on [15/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

 134 DISCUSSION
BRIDGING-OPERATIONS.
ON [Minutes of

Captain Rialla very rough day. Owing to the rise and fall of the tide, ramps
Snnkey.
similar t o t h a t shown in Fig. 22 had t o beadopted,withthe
exception that the Figure showed a four-legged trestle,whereas
inthe case t o which he was referring two-legged trestles were
used.Personally, hepreferredthe two-legged trestle,butthat
might be because he originated that arrangement many years ago.
This bridge was in use for about 6 weeks without any trouble at
allbeing experienced. Theotherexampleto which he wished
torefer was in connectionwiththerepair of somebridges in
Switzerland. I n t h e summer of 1910 verysevere floods occurred
there, by which a number of bridgeswerebroken down. As the
members probably knew, there was no regular army in Switzerland,
but all able-bodied men had to serve in the army. When the floods
occurred and the bridges were broken, the military engineers were
summoned from their homes by telephone, and in many cases they
arrivedreadyforwork a few hoursafterthedisaster occurred.
Altogetherthere were 63 officers, 197non-commissionedoEcers,
and 1,169 men a t work, and they were employed for 4 to 10 days.
ThegreatestdamagewasdoneintheLandquartdistrict,and
there 36 officers, 110 non-commissioned officers, and 684 men were
employed. The Landquart stream varied from 20 to 30 metres in
width, and the bridges over it, which had been swept away by the
flood, werereplaced temporarilybythemilitaryengineers,The
largest bridge repaired was near Felsenbach ; the total length was
70 metres, the longestspanbeing21metres. A t another place
called Rambach a single-sling bridge having a span of 20 feet, some-
what similar to the bridge shown in Fig. 15, was erected. I n t h e
summer of 1911 he passed through that district, and he noticed that
the Felsenbach bridge was still in existence, so that it had already
been in use for a year.
The 2yuthor. The AUTHOR, in reply, remarked that he was veryglad to hear
from Major Harvey that the Whiting typeof suspension bridge had
proved so successful, as he had a certain amount of work to do in
connection with i t before he left Chatham. H e had nothing further
to say except to thank the members very much for the kind way in
which they had received his Paper, and The Institution forallowing
it to be read.

Downloaded by [] on [15/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.