Underbridges In Craven

Underbridges are a feature in the landscape that are generally missed, often the only clue being a raised area in the track or a series of slabs lying horizontally across the path. The majority of them were created during the late 18th and early 19th century enclosure movement and were built to allow the movement of sheep and cattle between fields lying on either side of a walled road or trackway. Here in Craven we have a wealth of examples to study, ranging from basic ‘modern’ structures beneath the Settle bypass, through to much older stone bridges built with elaborate archways.

The Oxford English Dictionary describes an underbridge as ‘a bridge spanning an opening beneath a road or railway’. Although variously known as passages, culverts, cattle creeps, tunnels and stock underpasses, the word underbridge was the term used by the enclosure commissioners in their enclosure award documents. The commissioners were appointed by Parliament to oversee the enclosure of common land, wastes and moorland and had the power to divert existing paths and bridleways and to create new roads where it was deemed necessary. The result of all this enclosure was that animals were no longer able to wander at will and so tunnels were built beneath a trackway to facilitate the movement of the animals from one field to another.

It is commonly thought that the reason for building the bridges was to allow the animals access to water, but this did not prove to be always the case. In some instances there was no obvious water source nearby and I can only conclude that the farmer needed communication between his two fields to increase the size of his pasture. In some cases, due to the irregular shape of the field, the enclosure would create a field of such small proportions that, on its own, it would be of little use. The underbridge at Lee Gate, Malham, (SD924 638) is a case in point as shown on the enclosure map of 1849 shown here.

The tiny field on the eastern side of the road (no. 19) would be too small on its own but it has a stream running through it where sheep could drink. The underbridge links this field with Mr. Brown’s other field (no.19) on the west of the road.

The construction and appearance of the bridges varies considerably: there is the ‘modern’ concrete variety, the basic stone-built type with a lintel over the entrance, and stone structures with elaborate curved archways. In many instances there are also walled entrances which help to funnel the animals into the tunnel.

Of the seventy underbridges studied, sixteen lie beneath the A65 between Skipton and Ingleton. These structures, as you would expect, are built to a formula and are much taller than the tunnels beneath the old trackways and minor roads. Often they are in close proximity to the farm and therefore serve a dual purpose, enabling the farmer to drive a tractor through to gain access to his fields on the other side of the road. In the case of UB (underbridge)11 (SD743 688), allowance was made for children to pass through on their way to and from school. This bridge also spans Clapham Beck and at the time of construction there were problems with flooding, as stated in the Clapham Parish Council Minutes of May 1973. The culvert was said to be unsuitable for children and young beasts because of water flooding it from the beck and eventually the level had to be raised.

Of those bridges lying beneath the A65, ten are of modern concrete, but amongst the remaining stone-built examples is an impressive one at Thorlby. It has long walled entrances and a cobbled pathway running through it. Additionally, built into the walled sides, are recesses which have been for the farmer to put his medicines and other oddments in. These would be used in the welfare of his animals and are frequently found in field barns in the area.

Structure Leaving the bridges beneath the A65 aside, we are left with fifty four tunnels beneath the highways and byways which we shall consider further. Built of local stone, the tunnels are almost invariably straight-sided with only one instance found of a V-shaped design.

Rectangular tunnels, where the height is greater than the width, are in the majority at 63 per cent, leaving 37 per cent which are approximately square. Whether this indicates that the taller rectangular ones were built with cattle in mind has not yet been determined. Wonderfully constructed curved archways can be found in 32 per cent of cases and these are spread more or less equally between the square and rectangular shaped types. A remarkable amount of work went into the construction of these tunnels, particularly the barrel-vaulted type, an example being the one built beneath the Grassington/Conistone road. This tunnel some 12.3m in length runs diagonally beneath the road and is one of the longest beneath a minor road. It would surely have been quicker and simpler to construct one with a flat stone slab roof.

During the parliamentary enclosure period, when the majority of these tunnels were built, the landowner had to build the bridges himself or pay someone else to do it for him, which makes these barrel-vaulted tunnels and elaborate archways seem even more remarkable. There would be little motivation to spend time and money on elaborate constructions and yet in many instances this is exactly what happened. Public quarries were set aside by the commissioners to enable land owners to extract stone for the building of the walls around the enclosed allotment boundaries, for the new access roads that led to them and for the building of stock underbridges. The money for the administrative work executed by the commissioners was often raised by levying a rate against the landowner or by selling off some of the land to be enclosed. Either way, the landowner bore the brunt of it.

The width of tunnels is fairly consistent, with 71 per cent being between 75cm and 125cm wide and a further 17 per cent up to 25cm wider. Only two tunnels fall below the 75cm mark, being respectively 51cm wide and 60cm wide. A width of 60cm was certainly wide enough to allow for the passage of sheep but further evidence is needed to determine whether these two narrower underbridges were actually used for animals or simply for the passage of water. In regard to heights more or less the same applies, with 72 per cent being between 1m and 1.75m high. 17 per cent are up to 25cm lower with 13 per cent being up to 25cm higher. The lowest underbridge was measured at 66cm but this one was blocked-in totally and so the measurement can only be an approximation. The length of the tunnels is divided fairly equally into three main groups with 34 per cent between 3 and 5m long, 29 per cent between 5 and 7m long and 26 per cent between 7 and 9m in length. Allowing for the fact that some measurements are only an approximation because of collapsed structures, subsidence of surrounding ground and other factors, nevertheless a picture emerges of an ‘average’ underbridge being 1.5m high, 1m wide and 6m in length.

Distribution Stock underbridges are widely distributed within the Yorkshire Dales and of the seventy so far recorded a large cluster appears between Settle and Clapham as shown on the accompanying map. As this limestone area to the north of the A65 was the main area of research, such a result may be inevitable. As the search progresses into the more northerly dales, other clusters may well appear.

The majority of underbridges lie between 151 and 200m above sea level. The highest is UB41 (SD878 739) on Dawson’s Close, high up on the flanks of Darnbrook Fell. This partly collapsed tunnel beneath the track from Blishmire over to Litton stands at 408m above sea level. It lies within the parish of Litton and is in an idyllic location, flanked by Fountains Fell and Pen-y-ghent Side. The tunnel is no longer needed as the track has no walls at this point and it is gradually silting up and becoming overgrown. However because it is used frequently by fell walkers and the local farmers, there is every reason to believe that it will be maintained.

Rather surprisingly over half (56 per cent) of the bridges are still in use and although nine of these are temporarily blocked off they could be brought back into use by the simple removal of the odd gate or two. Of those not in use, the majority are in relatively good condition with only four in a poor state. When first surveyed a further three were in a poor condition but these have since been repaired. In the first instance UB4 (SD828 624) on Lambert Lane above Settle was strengthened in preparation for the Settle Loop Bridleway, an offshoot of the newly formed Pennine Bridleway which will eventually run from Derbyshire to Northumberland. The other two instances form part of the Pennine Bridleway where it runs between Stainforth and Clapham.

Identification Tithe award maps can be a useful source for finding new underbridges; only recently two new examples were found, clearly marked on the Long Preston tithe award map. Another real give-away is the field on the Litton enclosure award map which is actually called Underbridge Field. However these appear to be isolated cases as very few have been found on other tithe awards.

Bridges can often be spotted whilst out walking, by looking out for a raised area across a track or for large flat slabs of stone or slate lying across the path. In some cases gaps have appeared between the slabs and you can see down into the tunnel. A look over the wall beside the path will often reveal a hollow-way leading to it, worn down over many years of use by sheep and cattle. In many cases there are walled entrances on one or even both sides. Sometimes in a state of collapse and badly overgrown, nevertheless they are a useful indicator of the presence of an underbridge.

Dating Dating of the bridges can be rather problematical. Records exist for the more modern ones, for example the seven beneath the Settle bypass, and some records exist for those erected during parliamentary enclosures. However dating of the older ones is an uphill struggle. Nevertheless out of a total of seventy bridges, fifty one can be dated with some measure of accuracy: 49 per cent of these were built between 1800 and 1850 and a further 16 per cent in the preceding fifty years This was a predictable outcome as these were the peak years of the parliamentary enclosure movement which transformed so much of our landscape. Only 8 per cent were dated to before 1700 and of these, UB62 at Malham (SD900 634) is quite possibly the oldest one, although no records have yet been found to prove this. However it lies in an area which is surrounded by ancient walls of medieval date. There is an interesting story relating to this particular underbridge from John Geldard the farmer who had fields abutting it. He remembers one of his strays getting stuck underneath it and when the cow emerged onto the top field north of the tunnel she had grazed her back; there would normally have been enough room for her to get through but she was a particularly tall cow. As the top field, known as Strayny Poke, was landlocked the cow had to come back the way she went in! In the farmer’s words, ‘We had a devil of a job getting her to come back through’. This is difficult to imagine when looking at the remains of the tunnel today as it has been completely filled in on its northern side. I have been unable to find anyone who knows the origins of ‘strayny poke’ but the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘stray’ as a detached fragment and ‘poke’ or ‘poky’ as being small in size or cramped, which describes the field perfectly.

Sometimes an underbridge had to be extended owing to road widening, as was the case with many river bridges and the evidence is often there to see. A case in point is the tunnel near Giggleswick School beneath the B6480. On the east side is a flat stone lintel above the entrance to the tunnel but approximately 1.3m inside is another curved archway, which is obviously the earlier bridge. This road was originally the old Keighley / Kendal turnpike road and the main road to the Lake District, before the Settle bypass came into being, so it is understandable that there should be more than one phase of building.

A note of caution is sounded here: many underbridges are on private land so permission must be sought from the farmer if you wish to view these more closely. However it is usually quite easy to see them from the trackway above, and in all cases so far they have been on public rights of way.

Underbridges, like so many other wayside features that we come across, are part of our heritage. Many are impressive structures in themselves with their own intrinsic beauty. Not only do they give us a view of the past but they also give us an insight into one aspect of the workings of the modern-day agricultural scene. As to the future, no doubt some will go out of use, but as we have seen, others are being repaired and thus preserved, as is the case of those beneath the Pennine Bridleway. The very fact that they are beneath tracks and minor roads which are used on a regular basis means that they will inevitably have to be maintained in one form or another and so will be there for future generations to discover.

Acknowledgements My thanks go to John Geldard for the information on Strayny Poke and also to Ken Pearce for information regarding the Clapham Bypass