Great Western Coffee Shop

Header added by Grahame - 5th April 2020

This original thread looked at access bridges to farms and fields drifted and became more specific to the Purley and Pangbourne areas.

If you are looking for the original topic od access bridges to farms and fields, start  here at the start

If you are looking for the Purley / Pangbourne specific data, start at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=23147.msg285233#msg285233

---

Marlburian originally writes ....

Walking along disused railway lines I sometimes cross over a bridge that gave access to fields or farms. Usually the line had been single-track, but even so the bridge, of stone or brick, must have taken a lot of manpower, including skilled brickies, to erect. Where the access was to fields, more often than not, it is now blocked by mature trees, scrub and so on.

I wonder if the need to provide such access was a legal obligation on the builders, or was it a matter of negotiation with the landowner? (I think that the maintenance of such all-but-redundant structures is a responsibility of Network Rail?)

Today I walked down Portman Road in Reading, alongside the railway, and was struck by what was almost a tunnel leading to Little John's Farm. It's long enough to have at least six tracks running on top of it and must have taken a heck of a lot of time and money to build, just to serve one farm. It would have been easier and cheaper to extend Wigmore Lane or to provide new access from Cow Lane.

No doubt access to farms and fields has to be allowed for in the building of HS2, though at least modern techniques makes the construction of bridges easier and cheaper.

EDIT: Just remembered that later in the morning I passed under a bridge about 700m north-west of Pangbourne Station off the A329. The spot rejoices in the name of Sot's Hole.  As soon as one has gone under it, one is confronted by steeply-rising ground, up which a narrow public footpath leads. Seems another extravagance. A vehicle can pass under, but then has nowhere to go.

Just looked at some old maps. There seems to have been a building there at one time, so that may have justified the bridge.

There are a few locally  that I particularly like. One is a pedestrian underpass in a field very near Chippenham station but on the Calne branch. The second is under the M4 where the old Midland railway used to go towards Bath and Bristol (it must have cost quite a bit to build yet the line was closed probably before the M4 got built, its now the end of a freight branch). I was always fascinated by the pedestrian underpass at Radstock, which was still there when I last wandered around a few years ago, yet the railway went many years past (it may have now gone I believe there is some redevelopment).

That's at the end of the Westerleigh oil terminal, operated by Murco I think. It's also used for driver training, I think. I'm sure someone here will know more accurately than I do exactly what goes on there. From the way the tracks end exactly in line with the southern boundary of the motorway, I got the impression the motorway was built before it closed, but I haven't actually checked the history. It was closed off until a few years ago when the path alongside was opened up as part of the 'Yate extension' to the Bristol ring road cycle path.

I believe it was a legal obligation in many cases.

Structures on redundant lines were left with BR (Residuary Body) when Railtrack took over. They subsequently passed to Highway England (at least in England).

Yes - there's an obscure area of law here. I think in broad terms it arose from the fact that early railway projects each had to have its own private act of parliament which had to be at the end of a process of negotiation with landowners across whose land the new lines were to be laid. When the volume of schemes became so great that Parliament thought it prudent to introduce what were effectively standard rules for safeguarding the interests of those whose land would be affected, incorporated in what became a section of The Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 as follows, the works described being generally known as accommodation works, a concept carried over into all kinds of public works-

Moving on slightly, Chelfham viaduct, the largest narrow gauge structure in England but which hasn’t seen a train since the Lynton & Barnstaple was closed in 1935. Ownership passed to BRB and then Highways England (as stated above).

Now a Grade 2 listed structure, It’s considered likely that the viaduct escaped demolition due to the proximity of houses and a school underneath (a smaller viaduct on the line was not so lucky). The viaduct underwent restoration work in 2000 that was part funded by the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway preservationists and saw the parapets restored and other works to enable trains to cross it in the future. The present Lynton & Barnstaple Railway own and have restored Chelfham station to the immediate North of the viaduct and, along with Exmoor Associates, also own a surprising amount of the former trackbed between Snapper Halt (now beautifully restored) and Chelfham). The one thing missing are trains, but I hope to see it happen in my lifetime

There is a fantastic skew brick built bridge near Whitchurch over the Llangollen canal. The brickwork is immaculate with mathematically precise courses forming a  a double curved arch.

An authority on the MSWJR has emailed me the following:

"With regard to access to farms and fields, the form of crossing depends on what was agreed with the landowners and local councils when the railway company obtained its original Act, with the railway trying to minimise expenditure and the locals trying to avoid risky crossings.  When the Swindon & Cheltenham Railway was proposed, they kept the local council happy by promising to provide bridges for all the proper roads, hence the costly road viaducts around South Cerney where the road and railway met more or less on the level.  Farm tracks were much more dependent on the local landowners.  Although Farfield Lane, just north of Blunsdon, only led to a couple of farms, it was provided with a bridge.  However Rebbeck's Farm, 1 mile north of Rushey Platt, only had an occupation crossing, which resulted in a lad being killed in 1891 as he was trying to lead a horse across the crossing."

Up in the Cold Frozen North, well Whitby North Yorkshire, there is a Miniature "Railway" Tunnel on the footpath leading up from the Harbour to Bay Royal Whitby Hotel.

Built under order of the Railway King (or villain) George Hudson, it's an interesting thing to study, but beware of the "light at the end of the tunnel" it could be a train coming or if Red light it's a visit by Count Dracula.

I have a book based on the board minutes of the RGRR* and it's full of this kind of thing. While a railway act conferred compulsory purchase powers, a deal had to be made with every landowner, agreeing accommodation crossings or money in compensation. Simpler disagreements were settled by calling a local jury, which was unpredictable (well, juries were) and generally worth avoiding by both sides. Difficult matters and arguments about interpretation of the railway's act went to the court of chancery, for example in 1842 to decide whether an act empowering the Northern and Eastern Railway to arch over streets in Shoreditch to carry a railway also allowed then to do so for a station. Ruling - yes, as stations are needed for a railway to be of any use.

An example from the RGRR was the Rev. Mr Morres of Wokingham whose house (and some others) were served by a road which he claimed was a public road and so by the act should have a 20 ft wide bridge. His argument turned on its status before land enclosure, and whether that legally stopped up the rights of way continuing his lane or not. He was prepared to settle for 13 ft and a part of the money the company saved by that - but the company reckoned they could ignore him, strike terms with his neighbours, and say "see you in court". In the end they offered £25 - rejected - and settled for £40.

Then there was the case where the RGRR agreed and paid £400 in lieu of a bridge, but it was built anyway as the supervising engineer wasn't told about the changed plan. He of course complained about not being told, saying it had cost twice that to build. He suggested that if the money couldn't be recovered by the usual means (sweet-talking, threats of legal action, and I suspect some others) he would pull the bridge down and use the materials elsewhere.

* Reading, Guildford & Reigate Railway Company

This morning I walked along the permissive path running alongside the railway between Purley and Pangbourne and noticed a bridge merely allowing movement between two fields. The enhanced fencing of a few years ago has blocked it off.

Could it be a drain across a bourne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbourne_(stream))?

No, the access under the bridge is/was large enough for a sizeable vehicle (certainly by Victorian standards) to pass through. There were a couple of modern triangular height-restriction notices on "my" side, though I didn't bother to note the specified height.  Perhaps not quite enough room for a double-decker bus to squeeze through - not that such a vehicle would ever have been there.

The embankment there is quite high - a little further on, in the outskirts of Pangbourne, one can look down from a train onto people's roofs.

This bridge connected two parts of what was Scarces Farm, Purley. I would imagine that when it was put in as part of the original construction of the line it was needed so that farm wagons could get to the fields that became separated to the south of the railway from the rest of the farm longer was the farm to the north.

Scraces Farm was a working farm until (if I recall correctly) the early 1980s, when it was acquired by an overseas investor and farmed by contractors or other farmers so that the farmstead north of the railway was no longer was the focus of a working farm. I think that's when the fence was first erected preventing access which is from a public right of way at this point (the permissive path is only the last stretch up to the Westbury Lane railway bridge).

There is another underbridge at Purley next to the Marina that appears to go nowhere when you view it from the train as the housing on the southern side is slightly higher than the railway at this point while the Marina is down low. The only thing I can think it would be is Purley Park House's access to land belonging to them on the northern side of the line. I'm aware that the estate once had a subway under the Oxford Road near the Roebuck for access to their land that I guess was put in when the Oxford Road was diverted for the railway.

That appears to be right; there's a narrow strip of land then what looks like the boundary of Purley Park. The track leads out and goes to St Mary's church, as well. From there westwards the land rises and the railway is in a cutting with four overbridges for various purposes. Then there is the Scrace's farm underpass, which had a footpath through it since grubbed out on the south side. There's another underpass 350 m to the west (on the edge of modern Pangbourne) that is still open and provides road access to the sewage works, so presumably the public path now uses that.

There's also a bit of a story to this one. It was meant to have become a public footpath link when the Purley Beeches development was built in the early 1970s to provide a link between the Thames path where it leaves the river side by the Roebuck pub over the footbridge just west of Tilehurst Station and where it starts again in River Gardens, opposite Mapledurham House on the other side of the river. I don't know why this was not secured, but this would have been at the time that local government reorganisation meant that the planning authority changed from Bradfield Rural District Council to Newbury District Council, and the developer of the scheme, Loverock, got into financial difficulties in the financial crisis that followed the Yom Kippur War and the oil crisis of 1973-4.

Whatever the reason, the opportunity was lost to cut out quite a detour of more than a mile for those following the path who have to cross the railway over the New Hill bridge and then make their way back to the river through the Purley Park housing estate to the north of the railway. The name of this estate I think reflects the fact that it used to belong to the owner of Purley Park, but it was sold in lots in the 1930s, and became a development of holiday homes formed from (among other things) old railway coaches, caravans and similar structures, many acquired by Londoners. 

As regards the path under the railway bridge on the edge of Pangbourne mentioned by Stuving, this is a public footpath that runs along the Sul Brook all the way from the Oxford Road to the Thames towpath. For those with an interest in odd local government boundary anomalies, the triangular field lying immediately to the west of the Sul Brook just before it enters the Thames, Saltney Mead, had the strange status of being in two parishes simultaneously, one Purley (which it abuts), the other Sulham which it did not.

Much interesting detail here:

Project Purley (http://project-purley.net/R200142.pdf)

Lots of railway content!

A few years ago there was some talk of (re)-opening a path under a tunnel near the church in Purley, though I never understood quite where it was. The last couple of posts have prompted me to have at look at old maps and do a ground recce

There's still an inn sign on the towpath at the bottom of the Roebuck footbridge implying hospitality. Must be a bit frustrating for thirsty boaters to clamber up the steps and find the pub has been converted into apartments.

Interesting stuff. I learnt a lot from that and a little more about how the railway works
Thanks

So the road from the Roebuck to Purley village, which was probably the original road from Reading to Pangbourne before the turnpike was built, was abandoned to the east of the village. Looking at old maps this ran at a diagonal across the estate that is on the northern side of the line between that and the church, and it appears the Reading Borough boundary still follows the path of this road for a short distance across the railway to the ferryman's cottage near the railway wall. It seems likely that the underbridge at the marina was provided for something that was once a public right of way. Shame it never opened, as it would provide far more direct access from the 'floodplain' area of Purley to Tilehurst station.

Are we looking at the same old maps? I said earlier what I could see, and that text confirms that the tunnel/underpass by what's now the marina was for access from Purley Park to the church, negitiated with Anthony Morris Storer. Based only on Google Earth, it appears that when the land north of the railway was sold for housing, Purley Magna (as is now is) retained that track and a bit of land each side, with a locked gate at the end. So, not public and never was.

As to the old road, I read that diagonal feature as a wall - look at the detailing at the ends and gaps. Outside the wall there is more parkland in 1912, and landscaping did tend to obliterate anything that wasn't seen as pretty enough. It's not shown as part of the same land parcel as Purley Park proper, but I think it could still have been owned by Storrer as the text suggests. In fact, I wonder if the road may have been destroyed before the railway, if it wasn't the main road any more - landownbders did tend to do that sort of thing, whether legally entitled to or not.

1897 map of Purley & Tilehurst (https://maps.nls.uk/view/101458185)

showing the underpass near the Roebuck - also the tunnel leading to Little John's Farm (under three main lines and two sidings) that inspired this thread.


1897 map of Pangbourne and east of the village (https://maps.nls.uk/view/101458176)

The bridge that I mentioned in Reply 10 is shown over the track leading north from the .

"Wallingford 10" milestone

Modern Streetmap (https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=464500&y=175500&z=120&sv=purley&st=3&tl=Map+of+Purley+Hall,+West+Berkshire&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf)

(You may have play around with each map to focus on precise spots, enlarge etc - and there are different scales for the modern Streetmap.)

Wonder if I'll bump into any of you as we inspect the terrain as it is today?  :)

Incidentally the short stretch of towing path on the north side of the Thames opposite the marina is still a right-of-way, though I doubt that it can be accessed except by boaters. I believe that the owner of Purley Park didn't want horses pulling barges on his side of the river, so necessitating  those few hundred yards of path and two ferries. Must have been very irritating to bargees!

I was thinking more as a track/way, with possibly no right of, to replace the road which was obliterated by the railway, not necessarily following the same path. On an 1879 map it appears there is a path right up against the southern side of the line that makes a hard turn at the tunnel, joining a path from Purley Park.

I'm fairly sure that I read somewhere that the Oxford Road at the top of the hill was a later creation and it would make sense that an earlier road would have gone around the hill and through the village originally, and that this road could be used as a parish boundary. Perhaps this part was abandoned on the creation of the turnpike road but I would imagine that people still used the route as a footpath before the physical barrier of the railway appeared. It does look like a wall on closer inspection, could this wall have been alongside the road? Land on the northern side of this road/wall could have been acquired at a later date, otherwise why have the wall?

It's also rumoured that Purley once had a pub somewhere.

The history of the Oxford Road is related in another, less detailed publication from Project Purley here - http://www.project-purley.eu/R200140.pdf. It does seem that it is an old turnpike road, but it was diverted along what is its current course before the arrival of the railway.

It seems that what was probably the main road (or lane!) from Reading to Pangbourne prior to the Turnpike and construction of Purley Park originally went through what became the grounds of Purley Park, going downhill to connect to the road known as Purley Village at its junction with New Hill and St Mary's Avenue. It then went to the north of Purley Lodge, and then turned in a west-southwesterly direction to join what is now the A329 Purley Rise near its junction with Westbury Lane. The line of this remains as a public footpath from Purley Village to the railway bridge just south of the allotments (I remember seeing a Standard 9 2-10-0  from that bridge!). The section east of New Hill seems to have been diverted up New Hill when Purley Park was built.

As regards pubs, Purley has long been known as a village without a pub. I'd be intrigued to know where any pub was, and how long ago it closed!

Isn't there a lot of stuff in Project Purley! However, the building of the turnpike, and whether it followed an older road or went by another route, seems to have eluded the massed ranks of local local historians. But there are still more details to be found.

R200140, the document linked to by eightonedee, makes clear that the turnpike was moved to the south to make way for Purley Park (the house), built for Anthony Gilbert Storer around 1795. It used to run more or less straight between the current road at The Roebuck and just west of New Hill, and "a new road was constructed which ran about 300 yards south of the new house. It was bounded by a six foot flint and brick wall in traditional Berkshire style and the opportunity was taken to close off the old road to the village and construct New Hill.".

The 6" (1900) map shows part of the old track of this road, pointing towards the house from the east. It was for a short time the drive, before the new one to the south was made. There are some comments about the older road via the village at the end of R200140 but they are rather garbled.

R200144 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj4sqzd1MroAhXkmFwKHUVgCnUQFjAAegQIARAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fproject-purley.net%2FR200144.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0QDRXCOT2J9V1bhyYlIKz8) says: "There were many 'minor' roads such as the one which snaked down the hill from the Roebuck to the church and on to Westbury..." [that's Westbury Farm]. Now, the earliest 1" map is before the railway (I have the Cassinini composite dated 1816-1830). It shows a curved line from the Church to the Roebuck, where there is nothing visible now. Of course at that scale and date you can't say what it is - path, abandoned road, wall, stream; all look the same.

So that old road would have come almost due south from the church, then curved round to the east to meet the old road a bit before it gets to The Roebuck.

Now, is there really a subway under the railway embankment near the Roebuck? It does have its own overfootbridge. The 6" map has the word subway, but it is shown on the 25" map as if it goes under the road. Topograhically, that makes no sense - so this is still a puzzle.

Interesting stuff. I do enjoy clues on old maps.

I believe the subway marking to be referring to one under the Oxford (turnpike) Road rather than the railway. I've been down there to have a look on the northern side of the road in the past and couldn't find much trace. The southern side is inaccessible but would possibly have a more obvious trace as the ground is higher and a path to a subway would have required quite a cutting to reach it.

The rumoured pub was gone before or with the railway apparently, can't remember where the information came from though.

Stuving, I don't think the subway shown on the 1897 has existed for a long time if at all!  There is (or was) a pill box above the railway but set into the brick wall along the A329 on the north side at this point which is at some height above the railway, and the land rises again on the south side of the road. Unless somewhere there is (or was) a stairwell down to a tunnel somewhere in the bank on the south side of the road? But why make one here? It is quite a drop again to the river on the north side of the railway, and I think the house by the river there has a pedestrian access to the towpath where it runs to the pedestrian bridge by the Roebuck.

Did someone put the legend in the wrong place when engraving the plate for the map, when they should have put it by the tunnel connecting Purley Park to the church?

The pub, the Red Lyon is mentioned on page 8 of this

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/documents/s69452/2018-10-25%20Purley%20Parish%20Plan%20-%20Final-Report-for%20ID.pdf

This also mentions that the old road disappeared long before the railway arrived and that the pub probably went with the creation of Purley Park, and that the turnpike road was moved south to accommodate the Parkland.

Purley certainly is the oddest of Reading's suburbs, with many houses and roads but with the least amenities. Most of these areas beyond the boundary have little in the way of shops and pubs but Purley really stretches this to the limit. I would have thought the story would have been different if a rail halt had materialised. Not sure what site this could have possibly been on.

Thanks for that RG. You may have gathered that this is where I was brought up!

The village/suburb certainly always had a strong sense of community despite its lack of many usual facilities.  From the Project Purley materials and the Parish Plan it seems that is still the case.

I wasn't able to find a pre-railways map of Purley on the Web, but the most recent posts have given me an idea of the route of the old road. Thanks.

Yes, that subway shown by the Roebuck is strange. The track shown on the map alongside the railway line follows the new path through the wood, certainly at its Eastern end. (Until the Council made a gateway a few years ago I used to hop over the stone wall to get to Skerritt Way.) That path runs level and comes out at the same height as Oxford Road. The old track could have run through a hollow, subsequently filled in - but why? This 1:2500 map of 1879 (https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/466500/175500/12/100067) doesn't show a subway.*

My only other thought is there may have been a subway there before the railway was built, that served the ferry, enabling goods and perhaps people to be conveyed, saving what would have been a steep climb. The landowner might not have wanted horses pulling barges on his side of the Thames but might still have wanted the convenience of goods being delivered by water.

Then, when the railway was built, it demolished that part of the subway close to the river.

Yes, the pillbox is still, part of the WWII "stop" line. Very narrow apertures, and I did wonder at how these were angled. And a bit of a drop on to the railway should its occupants decide that discretion was the better part of valour!

* I prefer the National Library of Scotland maps archive to old-maps.co.uk, but it's in the latter where I found this map. It's VERY slow to load, and you may prefer to take my word for it that no subway is shown.

I'm sure one of the maps I've seen shows the 'cutting' down to subway on the southern side but I can't get the Old Maps website to work properly at the moment. Perhaps it wasn't on there, I do wish I would learn make a note of things when I discover information. I certainly remember having a quick look a couple of years back, convinced that there would be evidence but I'm not sure where I got the idea from.

Next to the site of the subway, on the southern side, I believe there was a patch of land owned by the Corporation that was to have become the site of a trolleybus turning circle discussed and planned before and after World War two. What might have been always interests me too.

Did you see that the 1:2500 map of 1879 (or maybe the next one, it's hard to be sure) shows the path running north-westwards to the road, parallel to the boundary line, as rising on an embankment? That's not compatible with the current topography either. And the 6" 1879 map on nls (and some others) have the word "End." (I think) where the boundary crosses the road ... though it's not the end of anything as far as I can see.

Amazing how much there is to think about in maps of a tiny bit of nowhere in particular, isn't it?

That's it, that's the one I saw. It's finally loaded. It looks to me like it's dropping into a cutting but yes, without the lines either side, faded or missing it suggests an embankment too. It's just over the boundary and today, it looks like a house might be on that site now. Does anybody fancy sticking their head into the bushes beside the house to have a look? ;D

Anyone in the locality might also like to stroll around the old towing path - still a right-of-way - to where it ends at  Roebuck Ferry Cottage. (https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4500666), just to if there's evidence of the subway there (as per my theory above that it might have a long time ago serviced the ferry). I did go up that way decades ago and recall it was a narrow path with tall vegetation of its southerly side.

One can gauge here (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/The_Roebuck_Hotel%2C_Oxford_Road%2C_Tilehurst%2C_1904.jpg) the height from the towing pat h to Oxford Road.

Come to think of it, the subway might have been designed to enable stores to be delivered  to the cottage. As far as I can make out, the only access is along that path or by  boat.

Recent photo (https://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/property/133608/single-storey-cottage-has-a-ferry-interesting-tale-to-tell.html)

I have just emailed Project Purley, inviting its comments on our deliberations.

If you look at the old Street View pictures on Google Maps, there's one where the vegetation alongside Oxford Road has been hacked right back. That reveals two gate posts, and what could be a gate, just where I reckon that track would come out. It's roughly halfway between the boundary line and the drive into what was than a bungalow miles back from the road (and has since, with its neighbour, been replaced by a small suburb).

You can't see any further than the rising ground immediately next to the fence, so it may or may not dip down behind that. But nothing on the maps, nor Google Earth's terrain heights, suggests it does - apart from that "subway" label!

I just took a look at that, I had no idea about that feature, thanks. The gate is immediately to the west of the line on the road where the tarmac changes (normally a good indication of a boundary in modern times) so I would agree and say that this was that path and that the space to the east inside the boundary is the potential trolley terminus site.  . Zooming in and the path space behind looks to be slightly lower than the surrounding land but not that deep, filled to a point perhaps if it was a subway. This gives a good indication of where the opposite side of the subway (if it existed) was. I might take a look next week as to what I can see to the west of the pillbox.

Additional: The old maps site has started working for me. The 1967 1:2.500 map for that area shows the tunnel under the railway from Purley Park to the Church in greater detail plus a track across the site of the marina. What looked like a wall on other maps is marked as a drain on this one. The piece of wasteland where the potential subway was is shown and the boundary doesn't run along the edge of this land it runs through the middle suggesting that quite possibly this site still hasn't been built on. I think that gate is still there amongst those bushes. Time will tell.

Regarding the proposed trolley turning point, I did wonder whether there was any significance in the area the other side of the road to the Roebuck (now hard standing that used to have a couple of cars parked on it) and the triangular piece of ground by the pillbox, recently re-surfaced and marked out for formal parking. Between them, these areas might have provided a turning circle.

Overnight I realised a weakness in my theory that the subway might have served the ferry. Certainly a tunnel might have been started at river level, but there was no exit for it the other side of Oxford Road - unless it went up a steep ramp.

But why was access needed under the road? Even today outside the rush hours, I can walk down Elsley Road and cross over to the Roebuck without problem. A hundred and fifty years ago, there would have been far less traffic and what there was would have moved at three to four mph.

And "subway"? My idea of a subway is the one underneath the platforms at Reading Station, quite long and deep. What made the crossing under the road by the Roebuck a subway, as distinct from an underbridge?

The Reading Trolleybuses book (which I've lent to someone and can't fetch unfortunately) definitely states that the potential turning circle site was questioned post war as to how safe it would be on a bend in the road.

The subway certainly is a good mystery. Are other subways marked the same elsewhere on maps of the same era?

A small tunnel or underbridge, for pedestrians only, I have seen marked as "underpass" more than once before, presumably it's the first meaning of that word. "Subway" I don't think I've seen elsewhere.

Totally OT but it's said, I don't know how correctly, that many of those pillboxes were built as much for morale boosting and keeping people occupied as for genuine defensive ability. Certainly there is a stretch of the Foss Way south of Cirencester where some pill boxes face SE and some NW (all are on the SE side of the Way which at this point is a byway or minor road).

Maybe this (https://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/sites/default/files/skerritt_wood_agreement_plan.pdf) plan shows the pre-turnpike road/path to be repurposed as the Thames path through Purley. It also illustrates well what I believe the triangle of land being discussed as the (then) potential trolley bus circle.

Nice plan, though the spot for the turning-circle that I had in mind was further down the road, much closer to the hotel. (I'm happy for this idea to be pooh-poohed.) Interesting to see that a tiny square marks the pillbox!

I had been thinking of exploring Roebuck Rise for any signs, but your plan shows that this would be fruitless. I'm conscious that now is not a good time to be wandering around close to people's houses looking for clues.

Just had a nice acknowledgment from Project Purley: "yes we have lots of info on the access bridges between Tilehurst and Pangbourne - will read your thread and respond to you in due course".. He's got a lot to work though! Perhaps some of our findings will add to the Project's own database.

I was unaware that there was ever a proposal to run trolleybuses to the Roebuck and turn them there (although this would be entirely consistent with Reading Corporation Transport's old habit of naming fare stages after pubs, and staring and ending routes at them!). Presumably this would have been instead of running the old number 18 up Kentwood Hill?

Reading Corporation generally planned to run trolleybuses along every major road to the borough boundary. The earliest trolley destination blinds had Horncastle, Shinfield Road and Donkin Hill on I think. The post war plan was to replace the trams and every motorbus route bar those that had to go under the Southern Railway bridge on Vastern Road, even though a route under there was the earliest planned and running powers obtained during the tramway era. The original plan to reach the Roebuck was to run a terminal loop via Carlisle Road, Clevedon Road and Elsley Road to Oxford Road. This was granted powers too but I believe required road improvements like kerbstones and pavements before they would be run along those roads, things that still don't exist today. The next plan was a turning circle and I think Arthur Newbery, a local landowner who has a park named after him, donated a section of land to the corporation believed to be opposite the Roebuck. War broke out before the trolley route was constructed. During the war, convincing the war department that it would save on petrol, the plan to reach the Roebuck, to extend those trolleys turning at Norcot Junction, was resurrected by the Corporation. At some point in the 30's the roundabout was constructed at the junction of Kentwood Hill and Oxford road and this provided a natural but short of the target turning point. The route opened during the war in about 1943/44 I think. After the war it was debated again to reach the Roebuck as the people of Purley actually petitioned it but I think powers had lapsed. The Corporation estate at Rodway Road was built in the early 50's and running the bus up Kentwood hill to a turning circle halfway up near the estate was chosen instead. The turning circle and some traction poles remain on Kentwood Hill, however not only has the high frequency electric service gone but no bus service whatsoever passes this point. I think I was among the last drivers to ever turn a bus in this turning circle, for only a handful of early morning journeys used this terminus when I started at Reading Transport. About 2003/4 I would say was the last time it was used.

Hugely off topic but there you go.

Interesting! The first three roads that you mention are very "residential" and doubtless were in the 1950s. (So would trolley buses have been a boon or nuisance for the residents?)Perhaps Clevedon Road was/is one of the most superior in Tilehurst? (I don't live there!) I imagine that the trolley buses could have got around the tight corner when turning into Carlisle Road from Oxford Road? (Overdown Road was only extended from  the bottom of Kentwood Hill to Carlisle Road, what, 30 years ago.)

I can vaguely recall the bus turning-circle being used. Must go there for another look - quite permissible in terms of time and distance under the present restrictions, and I'm visiting Costcutter at the bottom of the hill more often.

With the residential roads I would probably say that the trolleys were desired pre war and not desired post war by the residents. The story would be the same for Caversham Heights who's desire for public transport was the reason the Corporation first considered trolleybuses.

On Kentwood Hill don't forget to count the traction poles. Some are still street lamps, some are redundant possibly forgotten about. Bear in mind they only served there original purpose for 10 years. Those remaining at the foot of Northumberland Avenue in Whitley managed even less.

Fair comment!

Moderators - is this another thread that needs re-naming/reallocation? Perhaps "Roads (or connections) to Purley-on-Thames" in the relevant area group for Reading to Didcot?

I have though enjoyed it!

As ever, I shall defer to the Mods, though some of the early content does relate directly to the thread title and current focus is on the Roebuck subway that may or may not have been affected by the railway.

(Mind you, I have been tempted to refer to the re-alignment of the main road in the dip after Lower Basildon, with the original road now serving what used to be the Institute of Land and Amenity Management and several houses. And there are three generations of main road north of Whitchurch in Hampshire, the latest - the bypass - being built over part of the former railway line. But that would be stretching things, so I won't.  ;D)

Now I can sort of get it back on topic with Lower Basildon. A public footpath appears here on early maps running east to west from the church to the area of diverted main road near to the now derelict I.L.A.M. On the Old Maps website, the last appearance of this is a 1960 map. The next available for this area is 1967 where the footpath has disappeared. The interesting thing about this path is that it crossed the four track mainline at a level. Were there any other places between there and London where the public could cross the four tracks on the level, i.e was this the first level crossing on the line travelling west? Is there anywhere else in the country this occurs with a footpath?

This one is going to be very difficult to untangle!   I've been aware of it as an active thread that's been running itself - delighted with that.  But I don't really know the areas / relationships between the posts and am very nervous at spitting - as I suspect other moderators / admins might be.

I am going to suggest:
a) Retitle the thread to include both/all subject  - each in a few words
b) Edit the lead post to include pointers to the various topics within the thread
c) Add a couple of locked threads saying "post on this subject is at ..." on other relevant boards

I wouldn't disagree with a) and b). Not so sure about locked threads. On another forum I started one about Coronavirus which reached record proportions, to the extent that mods thought it'd become unwieldy and locked it, starting a continuation one and so discouraging  comments on the last posts in the first one.

However, an update: today, at the crack of dawn, I ventured down to the Roebuck. First I went over the footbridge (resisting the impulse to grip the handrail) and along towards Ferry Cottage. Where the towpath ended there was a brand new fence (with keypad gate) that was a spur off the one erected a few years ago alongside the railway.


Returning to Oxford Road, I crossed to the south side and spotted the two gate posts - actually stone pillars with a very old gate partly covered with undergrowth, almost directly opposite the gateway recently cut in the stone wall. There was a suggestion of a track heading upwards.

Then I walked along the path through Skerritt Wood and noted that the ground there was some 12 feet above the top of the cutting. I wondered if soil from the cutting had been dumped there.

If that path followed the route of Oxford Road before it was diverted, it might well have been deep cut from centuries of use. When the new road was built, this might have been higher than the path, with the landowner insisting that a "subway" be built under it (rather in the manner of those underbridges that we've discussed early in this thread).

You will notice a discrepancy here. Had soil been dumped in what is now Skerritt Wood at the time of the railway construction, the ground would have been relatively level, with no need for a subway!

I've also come across this recent record of rights of way. (http://www.rowmaps.com/showmap.php?place=Reading&map=OS&lat=51.4538&lon=0.973746&lonew=W) which shows two little bits of RoW close to the railway line. This morning I went to the end of Hazel Road and looked down the side of the end house. Cars were parked there and at the back was a bit of a hedge; I decided not to go any further. I wondered if these were remnants of the path that went under the railway to near St Mary's Church.

EDIT: Sorry, I can't fix that link to show Purley. You'll have to scroll across to it. The "two little bits of RoW" are on the southern side of the railway and directly south of the marina.

To clarify - the original thread to remain open.  The locked threads are to be new ones that do no more than waypost to the original or places within it.  Nothing in those threads worth commenting on  :D

Edit to add ... OK - done - Grahame

Harking back to the very first post in this thread!  I emailed a local historian, author and authority on historic landscape, who replied thus: "The winter before last I catalogued 1000+ historic documents originating from Basildon House. The collection contained a lot about the wayleave for the railway passing through Basildon Estate and the massive bribe paid to get the landowners objection withdrawn. It also contains the conditions imposed on the construction and a house and bridge at Sots Hole is mentioned. Before Pangbourne Hill was re-graded as a 'make work' project the path up the escarpment up the dry valley was an important route ... The documents are in the Berkshire Record Office who also have a copy of my catalogue."

As I said, Project Purley has a truly amazing amount of stuff in it. Even allowing for the number of headings leading to files containing no more than an apology for no-one having written the words yet, or even a terse "Text to be supplied". (Shades of Beachcomber's "SIXTY HORSES WEDGED IN A CHIMNEY - The story to fit this sensational headline has not turned up yet.").

So here's a few more; one on the Red Lyon (http://project-purley.net/R200196.pdf), concluding with some certainty that it stood roughly where the house of Purley Park was built; and one of old maps (http://project-purley.net/R200087.pdf) that shows specifically where that road from the village to the Roebuck went and how it moved around (which also features in the web page on the Village Street (http://project-purley.net/N2102.php)). That page also refers to the stairs and "pit" to the south of the railway where the path goes under it to cross the park to the church - features visible on the 1912 6" map (https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=51.47849&lon=-1.04175&layers=168&b=1).

A word about topography. The railway runs out of Reading on an embankment on the flood plain, and towards Tilehurst station the ground to the south rises up to its level. From there on, that land rises further and faster than the railway does, being originally a terrace with a scarp on its riverward side. (At least, as far as my limited geological understanding goes.) So the railway becomes a narrow extra terrace, more like a ledge cut into the scarp. So it isn't embankment nor cutting, but half in half. Hence the need to dig a pit in the park to get down to the underpass path level.

Then, by the village, the scarp spreads out to a gentler slope and the railway finds itself with higher ground on both sides. Towards Pangbourne the terrace itself ends at the break for the Sul Brook and the Pang, and the scarp curves around to face Sulham Lane. The railway moves across towards the river and now finds itself on a true embankment.

Now, by the Roebuck it is the road that first does that terracing trick - though higher up, almost at the top of the scarp. But there is, at least, a precedent (strictly, is that a postcedent?) for a "subway" reached from a pit dug on the uphill side! Except ... even the old route of the turnpike was back from the top of the scarp there, and couldn't have got close until some distance to the east.

That scarp, presumably wooded as no-one wanted it for any other purpose, shows on the older maps, and it must have dictated the landscaping of the park. Apparently the fully closed parkland ended with a wall just at the foot of the scarp, with the area around the church being enclosed as private but with some access to the church. The old road to the village went down the scarp, then along its foot,and finally across to the village itself, and was closed after the wall was built. If this happened in stages, then maybe that curving line leading to the church rather than to the village was the line of the road, by now just a path, before it was finally cut by the wall at the river end.

Might be worth trying to look at the West Berks definitive map of rights of way.
https://gis1.westberks.gov.uk/ApplicationTemplates/OnlineMap/?vln=PUBLIC%20RIGHTS%20OF%20WAY|PUBLIC%20RIGHTS%20OF%20WAY%20INFRASTRUCTURE (https://gis1.westberks.gov.uk/ApplicationTemplates/OnlineMap/?vln=PUBLIC%20RIGHTS%20OF%20WAY|PUBLIC%20RIGHTS%20OF%20WAY%20INFRASTRUCTURE)
Should give you all the detail you need.

Always have trouble finding the Reading equivalent, when the original RoW legislation was enacted county boroughs were excluded. I know the data exists I have it for work.

Nice map, Sid. I've been wondering where such a map might be. Handy if ever I need to report a problem with a RoW (though West Berkshire's are well maintained, compared with those in Wiltshire).

Your map confirms my "two little bits of RoW", marked as PURL/9/1, the westerly one disappearing into the bridge under the railway, where it ends.

(One problem - a pleasant one - is I'm tempted to scroll to other areas that I know and note other curiosities, such as ... No, I mustn't, otherwise this thread will meander even more.)

As is the case with the ROW map to which I linked, I can scroll across yours to the Borough of Reading and see RoWs within the borough. And I've just scrolled into Hampshire and to Salisbury Plain, though I can only get as far as the western edge of the Central training area.

Well, I can see two details the map doesn't help with - what ways went where 200 or 250 years ago, and why PURL/9/1 doesn't go anywhere. It's usually considered that a right of way has to go somewhere, and I recall that's explicit in the Scottish law but less so in the English. Is this "pit" (or its remnants) really a sight worth going to see, even if you have to return via the same path?

For information, the Reading RoW map can be found at:
https://my.reading.gov.uk/myreading.aspx (https://my.reading.gov.uk/myreading.aspx)
under map categories select Boundaries and then Public Rights of Way (I am sure there was some logic in that!).

I imagine that the owner of the marina has successfully managed to have the right of way extinguished between the railway underpass and the church - and that the underpass is fenced off. Has anyone been down there? Of course, if someone remembers walking it in the last 20 or so years, there may be a case for reinstatement - but that moment may now have passed.

I fear that I may be taking this thread further off topic and again taxing Grahame's patience. I can think of many instances of dead-end RoWs. I've walked along some of them to see what was there. (Usually not much.) There used to be a few stubs left over after the closure of RoWs on the Salisbury Plain army training areas, but these have disappeared from the latest maps.

Twenty years ago, Ordnance Survey maps still showed a public footpath crossing the Central Ammunition Depot, Bramley (and the Basingstoke-Reading railway line), though ramblers approaching the recently-closed depot encountered signs warning that the path had been closed since 1926!  In 2005 Hampshire County Council acknowledged that "the path is nonetheless shown on the definitive map (1964). The definitive statement acknowledges that the path is closed, and we can only assume that the path was put on the map in order that the promise to re-dedicate was not forgotten. However, it is misleading, and we think that although well-intentioned, the decision to show the path was erroneous. It will be added to a list of anomalies that we will be addressing in the near future." Both ends of the path outside the depot site are still marked on maps, but there is no trace on the ground of the western one.

The pit is next to  RoW Tile/4/1 off Overdown Road in Tilehurst and has the abandoned foundations laid several years ago for a projected house. But then the developer discovered he had no right of way to his site. Oops! (https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/tilehurst-developer-loses-high-court-4191311) Just off that path is Tile/1/1, which heads towards the larger Juniper Pit (now full of mature trees) before coming to a stop at a private house's gateway.

I wouldn't worry ... a few seconds of patience compared to the hours wasted ... oh, never mind - that was nothing to do with the forum.

Just thought I would comment that although I've never been to Purley-on-Thames (apart from whizzing through sat on trains), I've also found this thread fascinating. I do intend to walk the Thames Path one of these days, whenever we are let out, and am also researching old ferries, including the two that did once cross at Purley.

One question - somebody (Marlburian I think) did refer to the right of way along the towpath on the northern bank, which linked the old ferry crossings, and which still exists. Can it actually be accessed? On the OS map, there are no public paths linking to it at either end.

I've done all of the Thames path between Eynsham and Staines and can highly recommend it to anyone. The section of tow path on the northern bank at Mapledurham/Purley is only accessible by boat but it is still there as I have a mate with a boat and we went and had a look. There doesn't appear to be any other way of accessing it other than trespass. It seems quite a long winded way of completing the towpath with two ferries and a short section of path and I wonder why the one ferry didn't just go from the Roebuck to Purley.

I'd assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the towing path was literally that, and that horses towed barges along it. It would have been difficult to put horses on a ferry and propel it alongside the bank, towing the barges behind. Not that it can have been much fun switching them from one side to the other.

The path changed sides because of a dispute with the landowner. (There must be more details on the Web.)

I've just discovered this article (https://www.thamespath.org.uk/2009/01/15/attempt-to-open-purley-path/) about an attempt to create (re-open?) the path through the tunnel and behind the houses at Hazel Road. Presumably the inquiry found in favour of the residents?

Local Access Forum (http://www.tilehurst-globe.org.uk/TextFrames/thames%20path%20local%20access%20forum.pdf) "The following summary was submitted by the West Berkshire Council in November 2013 to the Ramblers' AGM concerning progress with the realignment of the Thames Path at Purley-on-Thames: "Major Storer's Underpass. No agreement so far with Network Rail but negotiations have started. Network Rail has said that it plans to brick up the arch, so any information on the historic value of the arch would be welcome."

More about Major Storer's Tunnel under the turnpike (http://project-purley.net/J0098.pdf) (Go to page seven.) This suggests that Ben Viljoen may know more, so I'm contacting him via the Berkshire Gardens Trust.

If you think of Constable's paintings, barge horses were transported (from one side to the other?) in boats.

Tunnel by marina? Subway by Roebuck? There  appears to have been another tunnel!

Project Purley Journal (http://project-purley.net/J0097.pdf) (From page 4.)

I suspect that was unusual. Have you ever asked yourself - who owned the boathorses? How long did one haul (or hale) for, and where did it live? I think you'll find that, when all boats needed hauling, they hired horses per stage from canalside owners. So while the stretch at Purley may have been shorter than a usual hauling stage, it could easily be done. And I've just found a reference to just that practice in a (Google) book of 1830 (https://books.google.fr/books?id=TwdeAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=boathorse+owners&source=bl&ots=EhM0peZ6SX&sig=ACfU3U3XP10YKIaX6bRyJVmB2_lv46bDMQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixos-f2dboAhVHecAKHfjTDaAQ6AEwAnoECAsQMA#v=onepage&q=boathorse%20owners&f=false): "It is a usual thing for the proprietor of the boat-horse to find the bridle and collar; and the captain of the boat the remaining part of the harness; consequently it has to be changed every time he has a fresh horse""

Blimey! a photo of the tunnel under the railway, great stuff. The tunnel under the road is interesting, when I was first reading it I thought this must be the subway. This suggests it was closer to the gatehouse and the map shows a drive to suggest this but not whether it goes under the road or not. However, if we look at where the two paths meet at the bottom of the map we see that another tree lined path goes off to the east and appears again leading up to the main road. We know that part of the old road from the Roebuck to Purley was used as a driveway to the estate so my theory is that our subway shown near the Roebuck is the tunnel mentioned in this piece to give the impression that the estate is larger than it is. It's possible that there were two tunnels granted. The section also mentions that it was used or registered as a WW2 shelter and this would make sense being the location closer to the Roebuck as this was where there was local population to use it.

The Jan 2015 article cited by Marlburian (this Journal (http://project-purley.net/J0097.pdf)) shows the layout as well as adding words. It really does refer to a third tunnel east of the gatehouse!

But when you look at the hairpin turn described as "difficult to negotiate with a horse-drawn carriage", does that suggest the original idea was to go straight on towards our mysterious subway? Now, say plan A was to do that, and duck under the turnpike so as to approach the house along the old turnpike as we know did happen at first. That subway would need a very steep, narrow, cutting from the south, and I suspect would have been found useful by the groundwater exuding from the chalk and thinking "Thames, here we come". So a new tunnel and road were made, allowing more convincing "look how big mine is" views. Lengthening the descending road to the first subway to make that feasible would not make it convincing.

Just a theory...

(changed: just spotted previous link)

Comparing the map on that gatehouse link to the modern satellite image, it looks like the gatehouse was where the bus stop is just before the Simons Close roundabout heading out of town, west. There is a short flint wall that looks like its marking the spot. So any tunnel to the west of this would be under that section of the Oxford Road no longer used (the fourth diversion) bypassed by the roundabout. The topography here in the estate to the north looks like it climbs up to the house, so if there was a tunnel here it to would have an even deeper cutting down to it. So I think there was only one tunnel, and it was the one at the Roebuck. So the journey to fool people would have been south through the gatehouse, to the southeast down to the tree lined drive, east along this then a hard left turn to the north, down to the tunnel level, under this then hard left again to face the house.

All very bizarre!

I am not convinced by any theory linking the strange story of the gatehouse on the wrong side of the road and the tunnel a little to the west of it with the mysterious subway close to the Roebuck. The topography is I think wrong. I am pretty certain that as well as the land falling away sharply to the north, firstly to the level of the railway and again to the river, it also rises quite sharply on the south side.

And just to start another theory running -was the towpath anomaly actually accommodation arrangements resulting from the construction of the railway, cutting off the towpath where the retaining wall runs right down to the water's edge? Having said that, there must have been quite a steep slope down to the river before the railway was built here, which cannot have left much room for a safe and reasonable horse towing path by the Thames. Perhaps it was a diversion forced by the lie of the land?

To complete the bizarre  - there's also the story of the mystery post box on the railway retaining wall - see - https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/mysterious-postbox-appears-over-river-11600450

I'm not so sure about the theories in the last two posts, but then I'm now even less sure about one or two (or even more) that I have floated! I'm waiting eagerly for replies from the two local experts to whom I've referred this thread.

Mind you, it's going to take them a while to work their way through it, what with my diversions to Wiltshire, Hampshire and Tilehurst!

My parting thought before I go to bed is why did Victorian cartographers make a point of marking the Roebuck subway but not the Lodge underpass?

(BTW, once we've completed - more or less- our discussions on Purley, there's something else that I've just spotted on old maps further up the railway to Didcot ... ::)

The 1934 6" OS map shows the path via the easternwestern underpass ... with stairs down on the north side! So either that was built for walking or, perhaps, found to be too steep like the putative western one. And that hairpin bend suggests that there never was a carriage road from the gatehouse via the eastern tunnel. So if one or both underpasses were built, it would have been "Mr. Storrer wants ..." but when it was built Mr. Storrer realised it wasn't going to work as he thought.


I think you need to read more of the journal articles about the Storrers - there is documentary evidence on the towpath being rerouted via the ferries. I'm not sure if there was a narrow gap between the railway and the river before it was quadrupled in 1891; an earlier large scale plan is needed to show that. But if the Storrers had blocked access onto their land, there was nothing for the railway to obstruct anyway. Note that some railway historians may think the railway cut the old road, because it was there in older maps, but would know that no accommodation was made. 

Three Purley Tunnels

For those who were as confused as I, here (https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=51.47644&lon=-1.04160&layers=6&b=1) is the 6" map of 1897 from the National Library of Scotland's excellent mapping site. On the image below, I have annotated these: 1 is the tunnel under the railway, 2 is the tunnel under the old turnpike west of the lodge and, 3 is the 'subway' under the turnpike close to the Roebuck Hotel

If you look closely at the road/path coming out of tunnel 2 to the north, a compressed version of the staircase is visible.

I had hoped that a night's sleep might have helped my thought processes, but no ... By "eastern underpass" I take it that you mean the subway by the Roebuck? On your 1934 6in map - and on the 1934 25in map (https://maps.nls.uk/view/104197177) - I can see no evidence of that subway (which appears to have been marked only on 19th-century maps) and none of "stairs down on the north side".

EDIT, having read Stuving's post: Yes, his annotated map does help. My only other observation at this stage is that early 20th-century maps do not show a track emerging on the southern side

I've just look at more old photographs of the Roebuck and this one c1900 (https://ghostlygazetteer.wordpress.com/2019/03/20/179-reading-berkshire/) shows NO footbridge - just steps leading down to the railway. (Scrfoll down through other photos.) Looking at maps (yet again!), it would appear that the bridge was built in the 1890s. Both it and the subway appear on this 1897 map (https://maps.nls.uk/view/101458185).

I'm now suggesting that there was a subway under the railway , not under the road, and that this was superseded by the bridge. When I was down there last Sunday, I saw no evidence of any portal on the railway embankment, but after 120 years ... But I'm not convinced ... :-\

(Just about to post this when Stuving beat me to it. Rather than risk losing my latest composition, I'm going to complete my post and read his.)

EDIT, after reading his post. Yes, that annotated map does help. My only other observation is that on early 20th-century maps the tracks serving Tunnel Two by the Lodge seem far less defined - indeed sometimes not shown at all - yet I have a vague feeling that some of the recollections taken from the Purley Project refer to the tunnel still being used in mid-century.

Maybe I should have stopped last night too - apologies for time wasted by my wild-goose-loosing mistake there: it should of course have been the western underpass.
The link to that photo has gone missing, so I can't comment. But there's an older map I shall have another look at...


I'd agree the internal roads suggest none of the underpasses was used for carriages, and several changes happened. Not all of those would have been updated by the OS promptly, since this was on private land so not the highest priority.

Sorry, I normally check my links after posting, but I was already challenged enough flipping backwards and forwards between half-a-dozen maps. As it happens, the duff link was just to one photo, the 1900 one, but the amended one  (https://ghostlygazetteer.wordpress.com/2019/03/20/179-reading-berkshire/)now leads to a number of cards of the hotel, a couple showing the steps down to the original bridge. (Scroll down.)

I've just had this excellent summary (https://dl-mail.aolmail.com/ws/download/mailboxes/@.id==VjN-67U85sf5XCEvQXSiPKsAnpP5Sa88BYT5020_6OIuzaruAGi1Elgk8Z8YeFCLHQn5pXSQPIt7834jXjyRXCwNNg/messages/@.id==AJBcJ2J-JGeTXo3HQA6t0KRMu5w/content/parts/@.id==2/raw?appid=aolwebmail&ymreqid=da42c264-72ae-6124-2f89-ef0007010000&token=5pamYaX2Y-y2O4rSYRTuH9hHo2J3_3NeXK9N5hW6JuhPM3jGPhPUJyg0wsi-JrmJN2Jr5ud_2zmRLqR6SfYfdu4AaLUSWCTxnxh4UIsdCfmldJA8i3vzfiNePJFcLA02) of "Cross railway access Tilehurst to Pangbourne" from Project Purley.

"As well as connecting with the towpath which carried on along the south bank to Reading there was a need to get to the Roebuck Inn on the Oxford Road. The GWR achieved this by building an iron bridge which remains in use today. To the south of the Oxford Road the route formed the boundary between Purley and Tilehurst Parishes. To the north of the Oxford Road this was a steep drop down to the river and there could well have been a tunnel to flatten the drop through the landmass which formed the banks of the river, but we have no evidence one way or the other."

"When Purley Park was constructed around 1800 the turnpike (Oxford Road) was diverted southwards. The lodge gates were built on the south side and a route was set up which passed between the Lodges, wound around land to the south and then crossed the Oxford Road by a tunnel just west of the lodges, This was superseded by a set of gates on the north side a few years later but the tunnel remained in use for another hundred years. It was used as the bomb shelter in WW2. When the Knowsley Road roundabout was constructed and a short section of the Oxford Road diverted, the tunnel was sealed off and there is no trace of it today."

Great bit of digging, well done chaps.

If the subway by the Roebuck only appears marked on 19th century maps, do you think it's possible demise and the topography changing might have had something to do with quadrupling the line between Reading and Didcot?


Is this talking about the path leading to the Roebuck subway? As today the land with the gateposts to the south of the road is divided by the boundary rather than the edge of the land being the boundary. This suggests its following, or followed a path.

Following Stuving's comments, I have no idea how unusual it was. Certainly common enough in Suffolk to be the source of Constable's painting, where the horse is fully harnessed.

https://www.wikiart.org/en/john-constable/the-white-horse-1819 (https://www.wikiart.org/en/john-constable/the-white-horse-1819)

“The barge (or lighter) at the left has just taken on board the horse from the towpath on the right bank, and is setting up to go downstream to a spot where the path resumes on the opposite bank.”

Source: Lyles, A.(ed), Constable The Great Landscapes (Tate Publishing – 2006)

In relation to the Thames it might be useful, when we are released, to investigate the Thames Conservancy records which are conveniently located at the Berkshire Record Office https://www.berkshirerecordoffice.org.uk/berkshires-past/river-thames (https://www.berkshirerecordoffice.org.uk/berkshires-past/river-thames) The Thames Conservancy (and the Navigation Commissioners before them) were responsible for the tow paths.

At the time Daniel Defoe wrote about the traffic on the River Thames (c. 1774) goods were carried in “Western Barges” which were both sail and horse powered. These are different from the better know “Thames Barges” used on the lower reaches of the Thames.

Here's vignettes from a couple of old OS 1" maps.

The first is from the Cassini "Old Series" map matching Landranger sheet 175. (This is the same as the source of the smaller, fuzzier, map in Project Purley I cited earlier.) It's a collage of various maps dated 1816-1830, scaled up to 1:50,000.

The second is from David & Charles's series of reprints of the first edition, sheet 70 (originally Sheet 13 "Oxford".) This was nominally 1891, but for railway updates only. The notes say the original plate was little revised otherwise, though urban areas would no doubt have had roads and buildings added too. It was reprinted a little smaller than 1:63,360, but I've tried to make them match as closely as I can.

You can see that these maps really didn't get updated much at all, except where a railway was built - and around there other changes would be made too. Elsewhere, even what the large scale plans now showed wasn't added. Those plans visibly do change in even small details, but I would still say that a feature that persists on the map didn't always do so on the ground. That is inevitably more true on private property, where no doubt surveyors would need to negotiate access.

So the older map show a path of some kind from the Roebuck down the scarp to the towpath. it also shows that new track curving towards the church from the south, but apparently no longer from the "gap" in the scarp where it went before Purley Park was closed off. Instead, it comes from an enclosure with a building in it, of which I can see no sign in the plans.

No drives are shown within Purley Copse, but the trees that line the avenue running south-east and then turning left to near the Roebuck is shown. All of the land-form, park, and tree details remain later, but that proves nothing. The railway is put in much to far from the river, and I imagine on its true line it take out that mysterious enclosure.The main drive up to the Storrers' house is shown in both as from opposite the gatehouse.

I have (yet) another theory, one that suggests a solution to the discrepancy:

The old track running though what is now called Skerritt Wood was deep cut because of centuries of use by what would then have been heavy traffic. The original railway ran perhaps 40-50 yards from this, but led to the main Oxford road being diverted close to the Roebuck, some feet above the path. "Subway" suggests a passage for pedestrians, rather than vehicles (perhaps I clutch at straws), to take them to the other side of the road. Possibly it continued under the two-track railway, facilitating access to the ferryman's cottage, but I now have my doubts.

When the track from Reading to Pangbourne was quadrupled in July 1893, spoil was dumped on the path, bringing it to the same level as Oxford Road. making the subway redundant. About the same time, the footbridge was built over the four tracks, making it eaier for pedestrians to get to the cottage.

There are a couple of other postcard views for sale on eBay:

Bottom of steps (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Hw4AAOSwmFNZZ2qI/s-l1600.jpg)

Ferryman's cottage (https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/hjEAAOSwrFZby7eg/s-l400.jpg)

And to add further piquancy, note the buffer stops below "Not be" in the top photo. I wondered whether I was mistaken, but checked the 1910 revision of the 25in map (https://maps.nls.uk/view/104197180), and there was a siding running from Tilehurst Station. I imagine that this was for the GWR's benefit, as goods traffic on the Thames must have significantly fallen off by then.

The key to resolving a number of conundrums in this thread appears to be - what happened when the line was "doubled" from 2 to 4 tracks. Was there an additional land take from Purley Park to the south or did it involve land to the north, presumably meaning that the "blue" engineering brick retaining wall currently retaining the line where it runs closest to the Thames was constructed at this time.

I think I remember reading Rolt's biography of Brunel and seeing that the construction of the stretch past this point and Sonning Cutting were two of the more challenging elements of building the line in the 1830s, especially (if I recall correctly) as there was an exceptionally wet spell when the line was driven through either side of Reading. As I borrowed the book from the library  (remember them?), I cannot check to see if my memory is playing tricks, but I am sure that there are forum members who have the book and can correct me.

I as wondering that. Further east, in the cutting, the new overbridge spans are on the north side of the old. However, the bit from there past the Roebuck was part-way up the scarp and (apart from that footbridge) had no overbridges. My feeling it that the railway was so close to the Roebuck that it could never have expanded that on side - unless the slope was quite gentle and was replaced by the retaining wall above the railway.

Juts found this 1878 photograph (https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/photos/item/HT02562), confirming what you suggest.

More about the ferries (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q2aoAwAAQBAJ&pg=PP196&lpg=PP196&dq=roebuck+hotel+tilehurst+railway&source=bl&ots=FYElV_xAzM&sig=ACfU3U1qxlTwDsKFE7vAyq-w0KLDe0UNiA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxg7GvvNnoAhWbi1wKHRg2B2k4HhDoATABegQICxAq#v=onepage&q=roebuck%20hotel%20tilehurst%20railway&f=false), with a sketch map showing the connecting path, but a page (or two) missing from the on-line preview. (If my link takes you straight to the map, scroll up for details of the dispute  leading to there being two ferries.)

Interesting section of mixed gauge track to be seen.

Yes, the widening seems to vary along the line. At Twyford it's on the south, while at Kennet Mouth I believe it's on the north side of the line. Over the road to the River in Pangbourne it's either side of the original bridge

Thanks Marlburian

I hereby renounce my theory about the towpath crossing the Thames because of the railway!

There were two chain ferries one next to the church and on by the roebuck. The towing path ran on the north side of the Thames between them. They simply loaded the horse onto the ferry and hauled the ferry across the river  holding on to the tow rope. On the other side they simply attached the rope back on the horse and carried on. If I can find out how to add photos I'll send you all one

Welcome to the forum, Purley ... clear and obvious once you point out how it was done.  Best way to add a picture (if it's not on web space elsewhere) is to use "Additional options" and do so as an attachment. Or email me a copy and I'll put it on the server.

Oh goodee! I'm glad someone else asked. When making my original post 85, I was conscious that the two eBay links would be temporary. Thanks to Graham's answer I've now amended that post to permanently include images of the two cards.

It looks as if we've reached the end of the road when it comes to determining what the Roebuck subway was for, unless there are clues tucked away in some archival document. I'd vaguely hoped that someone might volunteer some info about that long siding from Tilehurst Station to the Roebuck. (See my post 85.) I guess that the best source would be Tony Cooke's track plans (http://lightmoor.co.uk/category.php?section=Track%20Plans) (which I found very useful into my early research into military railways in Wiltshire). But Reading Library appears not to have a copy.

 I went down this morning for another, inconclusive look, first venturing onto Platform 4 at Tilehurst Station, an hour before any trains were due. There were two ambulances on stand-by and I wonder what the crews thought. Despite having made thousands of journeys from Platform, I just wanted to see how the siding would have been accommodated. Then up to Roebuck, to see where it would have ended, and up to the gateway to the path through Skerrett Wood, peering over the wall on either side.

Not for the first time,, I wondered why the slits in the pillbox were facing across Oxford Road at an angle, rather than down it, in the direction from which invading forces would have come.

The Signalling Record Society have a low resolution image of Tilehurst (https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/S160.htm) which is dated 1925. The siding you refer to was the Up Refuge Siding - used to reverse a goods train into and be overtaken - and was in use until April 1964 according to my copy of 'Reading to Didcot' by Mitchell & Smith (2002)*. Also in use from 1899 to 1924 was the Down Engine Siding also visible on your linked 25" map. Some mention was made of it being used to store a GWR manager's personal railway carriage for his daily trip into town.

*ISBN 1-901706-79-6, Plate 29

That's useful info, thanks. I guessed that must have been the purpose of the siding. I too came across the SRS plan. but it defied my attempts to enlarge it to make any sense. It took me a few minutes to work out which was north and which was south. (I appreciate that it's low resolution as the Society wishes to raise funds by selling a readable copy - fair enough.)

Adding and removing the manager's carriage must have caused some delay to trains? Reminds me of the speculation when one rush-hour HST stopped at the stations between Didcot and Reading, that this was for the benefit of a BR manager who lived in one of the villages.

If there is still some mileage in this path there might be some maps of interest at:
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/dont-lose-your-way-2026/finding-historical-sources-online.aspx (https://www.ramblers.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/dont-lose-your-way-2026/finding-historical-sources-online.aspx)

It does; notably the Land registry, which I'd not used for a while. Its cadastral map shows that the narrow strip of woodland between the marina and the houses, which it seems the path north from the tunnel under the railway is preserved in, is actually part of the marina's land holding.

Another article about the proposed right of way behind houses in Hazel Road. (https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/13385766.council-accused-in-village-row-over-thames-path/)

There must be other articles on this particular topic, but I've yet to find them - and I haven't found the inquiry's final report.