Unknown Location-Old Postcard

[petethemole]

A quick check reveals no spire at Rugely, but I think that tall dark thing looks more like a poplar tree than a spire.

[bertiedog]

This is the view I think. equaly it could be a view south as the line crosses the river, and thats a big poplar to be that far back in the view.

From Google ©

[bertiedog]

I think this is from the same place, but looking South from Rugeley, there seems to be the remains of an underpass as in the shot, and the river is still in the right place.

Copyright Google ©

[d600]

Assuming a look north, it could indeed match the LNWR main line at Rugeley. Possiby church tower matches town. The shot is repeated a bit clearer, purely to show it bettter after photoshop, I expect out of any copyright, and with respect to the original poster.

 

Hi thats ok has i own the copyright,as far as i know this is a one off card from a personal collection shame they didnt write location on the back lol.

 

cheers

[bertiedog]

Final bet, a few hundred yards south, looking south, and the things basicaly match, allowing for distortion in Google

From Google ©

[d600]

A quick check reveals no spire at Rugely, but I think that tall dark thing looks more like a poplar tree than a spire.

 

Hi i agree i thought it was a church tower but when i looked with a magnifier it seemed to be a very tall tree,must say the pictures above do look very similar the river is in the right place.

 

cheers

[beast66606]

Remember on those days the focal length of the camera was probably around 30-50mm, so the under bridge is not near enough to the bend in the river.

[d600]

Remember on those days the focal length of the camera was probably around 30-50mm, so the under bridge is not near enough to the bend in the river.

 

Hi i cant evan see an under bridge in the original picture where is it lol,has the photo been taken from a bridge?

 

cheers

[petethemole]

The proportions, aspects of the landscape and the track curvature don't quite match the google view. I'v just gone over the same area with Bing bird's eye but still can't match it to my satisfaction. The pic was probably taken from an overbridge; the fuzz at bottom right is probably the parapet, out of focus. I appreciate that an unimportant bridge would have been removed during electrification, but I couldn't find a location where one might have been. Mind you, I have absolutely no idea where else it might be!

[beast66606]

Hi i cant evan see an under bridge in the original picture where is it lol,has the photo been taken from a bridge?

 

cheers

 

Don't know, the modern photo poster mentioned it !

[Edwin_m]

The row of trees in the centre of this image looks very like a river bank, suggesting that the Trent may have changed course or been diverted at some point.

 

There's also something distinctly odd about the right hand curve in the tracks - an opposite kink in the middle of a gentle curve coinciding with a lighter rectangle on the photo beyond which something more like the foreground curvature resumes. Could this be some kind of artefact of the camera or the printing process? Or if there really was such a reverse curve perhaps it has since been straightened out?

 

If (big if) I'm right on these two issues then the view from the surviving overbridge would seem to fit better, or there might have been an occupation/accommodation bridge directly opposite the farm where there appears to be a lighter scar running across the ploughed field towards the railway. Unfortunately there's nothing to triangulate on except trees, which are probably pretty unreliable in the first place even for a site that hasn't been obliterated by a golf course and the power station sidings.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Don't forget that Armitage to Rugeley was a very early quadrupling, around WW1. Also, overbridges are as rare as R...... H.... S... in that area, so taking a photo from an elevated position is a bit difficult.

[Armchair Modeller]

Old-maps.co.uk suggests 2 footbridges at approximately 406490 317840 - one removed by 1924.

[Edwin_m]

Google satellite appears to show the remains of a ramp in the field a little south of the one remaining bridge, which could have been another bridge, but that site doesn't fit with the photo - not least because the other bridge would have been in shot.

[melmerby]

There is something suspiciously odd about the LH track border.

If you blow the picture up you can see the texture each side of it's peculiar straight line, with a sudden change of direction (not curved), is very different. It looks almost like a composite picture.

 

Is it possibly someones darkroom experiment?

 

Keith

[PhilJ W]

Google satellite appears to show the remains of a ramp in the field a little south of the one remaining bridge, which could have been another bridge, but that site doesn't fit with the photo - not least because the other bridge would have been in shot.

Perhaps the bridge wasn't there at the time. A replacement perhaps?

[d600]

Hi theres some very interesting comments been made and the google pics look similar but i dont think its the same place,the tracks look funny to me going by the size of the river i would of thought it would still be there today .

 

cheers

[d600]

Old-maps.co.uk suggests 2 footbridges at approximately 406490 317840 - one removed by 1924.

 

Hi i took at look at the above if you choose map dated 1923-1924 it does look very much like that area,4 tracks,wide river etc id think today the area would look very much diffrent from then,i noticed there is a minreal line opposite with a funny kink in the line but theres only 2 tracks,so maybe it is rugeley

[TheSignalEngineer]

There is something suspiciously odd about the LH track border.

If you blow the picture up you can see the texture each side of it's peculiar straight line, with a sudden change of direction (not curved), is very different. It looks almost like a composite picture.

 

Is it possibly someones darkroom experiment?

 

Keith

That looks like the effect of using the sharpen button on photo enhancement software. The second version has lots of noise on it.

 

The 'spire' doesn't like like a spire profile on the original, more like a tree as previously said.

 

Also, with a magnifying glass on the original, is there a Signal Box in the far distance where the lines seem to converge?

[beast66606]

Also, with a magnifying glass on the original, is there a Signal Box in the far distance where the lines seem to converge?

 

I don't see it, in fact there is a general lack of signals or wires.

[bertiedog]

The lined areas are on the original, but the enhancement used the lines as the border to enhance the left side in photoshop, I suspect the original was dodged in the darkroom for exactly the same reasons.

 

The shape of the area in google earth view is grossly distrorted as usual, and the view pretty approxiamate, but if you withdraw to the overhead aerial view of the area in Bing or Google Map, then the shape really closely matches the photo.

 

I can't find any other main line LNWR that runs alongside a major river like this.

 

Quite why a particular view was taken will remain unknown, but many photographic companies in the Victorian and Edwardian period were meticulous in taking record photographs of rivers etc. Most larger rivers are well covered with views, and it is more chance that the railway is featured in this shot.

Stephen.

[melmerby]

Just a few musings!

 

Is the photgraph taken from a bridge or is it just at the top of a cutting? The fuzzy bottom could just be the age of the print, rather than an out of focus parapet.

It looks to me as if after the cutting there is a shallow embankment, delineated by the fence line.

Also where do the telephone poles go to?

 

What about the "fourth track"/RH fence? If a fence why is it at the bottom of the cutting? If it is ballast, why is it there? Could it be during the process of adding extra tracks?

Could this be why the picture was taken? E.g. "work in process"

 

Keith