The iconic water tower at Liverpool Road Manchester railway station
As ever, very provisional and much conjecture plus thanks to Ed for stimulating discussions…
Perhaps the most familiar visual record of the first railway station at Manchester is Thomas Talbot Bury’s Entrance into Manchester Across Water Street which was first published in 1831 and updated in 1833 as shown here. Curiously Bury does not feature the goods or departure station on Liverpool Road but rather focuses on the twin engineering feats of the bridges over the Irwell and Water Street that brought the railway into town on a viaduct comprising 22 arches. Between the two bridges is a ramp and a prominent water tower necessarily raised above rail level so that it could service a water crane on the southern Liverpool-bound track.
Mains water was pumped into the raised tank by means of a stationary steam engine located at ground level. The chimney was absent in the first version suggesting that other means were initially used to fill the tank if indeed it was functional at that time. The engine also drove a hay-cutting machine and the boiler supplying steam to the engine was used to pre-heat the water destined for the locomotives.
The presence of the ramp was a concession to the Old Quay Company which owned warehouses alongside the Irwell and which raised objections to the plans to bring the railway into Manchester. It provided an 18 foot roadway alongside the track as far as Ordsall Lane on the other side of the Irwell.
There are few if any detailed plans of the early station but a town plan from 1849 shows a cistern house, i.e. water tower, above the roadway at what is presumably the top of the ramp. Whishaw (1842) notes that this comprises four tanks and outlines the manner in which steam from a boiler (presumably also used to service the engine used for pumping and feed preparation for company horses stabled nearby) pre-heats the water in the tanks to 84F/29C.
In his 1833 guide to the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, the pseudonymous Tourist published a sketch of the viaduct’s approach to the Irwell bridge. It includes the lefthand span of the original water tower and shows a low arch possibly with iron bars and air bricks, potentially providing ventilation for the engine, either directly or via a connection to the adjacent righthand arch (not shown) assuming they are connected and depending on the location of the engine.
What appears to be a ladder at rail level with a workman or two suggests that the expanded capacity, the cistern house, was already present in 1833, perhaps reflecting the increase in traffic on the railway. Alternatively it may have been added at the same time as the 1837 arrivals station on the opposite side of the track.
Detailed plans of the station are unfortunately lacking prior to the town plan of 1849 which shows the cistern house. It does not, however, show the original water tower. However, if one accepts that a ventilation space would be needed, the space with the black mark is appropriate and identifies a potential abutment (yellow) which is 5 feet wide. The space itself is 16 ft wide and, together with an adjacent central pier, span and righthand abutment, defines the location and breadth of the original water tower which corresponds closely to that of the cistern house of 44 ft in width (5 ft x3 + 16 ft x2 = 47 ft). The approximate size and location of the arches are also shown in red and blue. These are of the order of 20 ft clear span and thus curiously slightly wider than the spans of the original water tower at 16 ft. This can be seen in Tourist’s sketch.
If this supposition is correct, it would appear that the original water tower survived at least until 1849 and may have helped support the supplementary water tanks in the later cistern house. The nature of the surrounding buildings is unclear but the presence of a weighing machine suggests it may have been a warehouse (as in the original specification for the 1837 arrivals station) and/or something like a lumberyard.
_With thanks to Ed, Paul and Ant for information and discussion on Bluesky. Their interpretation may differ! _