Westminster Bridge: Construction and Use

Westminster Bridge crosses London’s Thames, linking the Westminster side, home to Parliament, with the south bank. In the early eighteenth century, population and neighborhoods expanded, but crossing still required a boat, while road traffic often detoured downstream to London Bridge. A new bridge involved more than choosing a site: the City of London feared losing customers to other markets, watermen feared lost ferry income, and shipping interests worried that piers would obstruct the river. Legislation in 1736 supplied the institutional and financial basis for preparations.

Charles Labelye designed the first bridge. In 1739, the scheme was changed to an all-stone structure, with masonry undertaken by Andrews Jelfe, Samuel Tufnell, and others. Caissons were used for the piers; in 1747, one pier subsided, cracking adjacent arches and requiring reconstruction. The bridge opened on November 18, 1750, funded by lottery proceeds and parliamentary grants, and was free of tolls.

References: [1]

The old bridge gradually deteriorated. After old London Bridge was removed in 1831, stronger scouring made Westminster Bridge’s foundation problems more pronounced. Commons select committees investigated in 1844, 1846, and 1850, and the Treasury appointed a further committee in 1851 to examine the location and structure of a new bridge.

Engineer Thomas Page proposed the new design, consulting Charles Barry, architect of the Houses of Parliament, about its appearance. Page already had experience surveying the Thames and undertaking hydraulic projects. Construction began in 1854, requiring replacement of the structure while road and river traffic continued.

References: [1] [4]

Rather than demolishing the entire old bridge first, Page divided construction across its width into two stages. He built one half of the new bridge upstream of the old one, diverted vehicles onto it, then demolished the old bridge and completed the other half on its site. This method incorporated temporary access into the permanent works, avoiding a separate temporary bridge.

Wheatley and Cunningham’s 1891 account dates the first half’s opening to March 1860 and the entire new bridge’s opening to May 24, 1862. The two dates represent partial availability and full access respectively.

References: [4] [5]

The new bridge crossed the river on seven relatively flat iron arches. Its piers were faced with granite, while the abutments reused Portland stone reworked after demolition of the old bridge. Cast iron was used for arch ribs, ornamental spandrels, and parapets. Gothic decoration visually connected the bridge with Parliament, giving it a role both as transport infrastructure and as part of the parliamentary district’s public landscape.

The 1891 bridge-history entry also describes load-bearing piles, enclosing iron columns, and concrete filling in the foundations, with brick pier interiors clad in granite. These components transferred the upper structure’s loads below the riverbed.

The deck used buckled iron plates patented by Robert Mallet in 1852. A shallow dome pressed into each thin plate supplied the required stiffness with relatively little weight. The bridge was nearly twice as wide as its predecessor, with pedestrian space on both sides of the road. Structural materials, deck weight, and roadway width were interrelated choices within the same rebuilding scheme.

References: [1] [5]

Management and funding also delayed construction. The parliamentary debate of July 26, 1861, records work stopping after the original contractor, Mare, became bankrupt, followed by controversy over completing the project under Page’s direction without an overall lump-sum contract. Commissioner of Works Cowper attributed some responsibility to committee recommendations. Henley, a former committee chairman, countered that the Office of Works could have made a new contract for the second half.

Members questioned additional appropriations, whether the engineer’s commission should include cost overruns, and whether the contractor’s sureties could provide compensation. The record shows that calculation of the commission was still disputed. Initial quotations, supplementary budgets, and total expenditure including surrounding works therefore cannot be merged into one figure. Nor should responsibility for delays be assigned merely by repeating one party’s defense.

References: [2]

Parliamentary answers in 1863 show that completing the bridge structure did not finish all associated work. Property acquisition for approaches, landing stairs, and works on both banks remained to be dealt with, while connections to steamboat piers depended on the progress of riverside works. The bridge’s usefulness required roads, piers, and riverfront construction to fit together.

In the same exchange, Cowper explained that police at both ends directed heavy, slow vehicles toward the center and lighter, faster vehicles along the sides. Members criticized the inconvenience of this arrangement. Widening created possibilities for separating traffic, but operation still depended on on-site management, road-surface maintenance, and gas lighting.

References: [3]