Where might this be?

[Nick_Ips]

I was going to add a paragraph about which side of the bridge, but decided that was getting too technical! 

Something that looks like a cutwater could be on either or both sides of a bridge, they aren't just used upstream.

Without going in to all the details, on the upstream side the issue is the pressure of water and debris impact. The cutwater ensures the water and debris passes by the pier with minimum sideways force on the bridge and a lower risk of debris damaging the structure or forming a dam.

On the downstream side, the greater risk is the hidden danger of scour. This is the one which is more likely to keep a bridge engineer awake at night because it can cause a bridge to collapse without warning. Turbulence and faster flow caused by the bridge piers leads to the river bed being removed, undermining the foundations. To overcome this, the downstream side of a bridge pier may be constructed in the same plan shape as a cutwater to help reduce turbulence - i.e. the separate streams of water coming through the different arches are returned to a single stream as smoothly as possible. It's a similar reason to why time-trial cyclists have odd-shaped helmets.

Another factor might be the bearing capacity of the ground making up the river bed being low, so the size of the foundation has to be larger in plan than the bridge pier itself (the load is then spread over a greater area) - so what look like cutwaters may actually be designed tapering between a large foundation and smaller pier.

The final factor might just be the designer wants the bridge to be symmetrical, so even if there is no technical need for the cutwater shape on the downstream side, the engineer might put them in to make it look pretty.

My own feeling is the same, I think we are probably looking at the downstream side based on the appearance of the water. I also did wonder if the darker patches under the bridge may be a weir, rather than just shadow, which would strengthen the downstream position theory, but unfortunately the level of detail isn't enough to be sure about it.

I just hope there is a clue on the back of the mount 

[pbmartin]

Whilst triangular cutwaters are relatively common, where economy of material was important they rarely extend in height above peak flood level, sometimes no more than just above normal river level.

In this case the triangular shape extends all the way to parapet level, far beyond the point where they are likely to have any water cutting benefit. The function, if any, at that point becomes butressing the spandrel wall (the inverted triangular shaped wall between the arches), or simply as an ornamental feature.

The bridge at Geddington, Northamptonshire has cutwaters on the upstream side that extent to parapet level where they form a refuge for pedestrians from vehicles on the narrow roadway. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2438011

[Nick_Ips]

Yes, I'm not suggesting the bridge in the painting is unique in having parapet level 'cutwater' features, just that it isn't a universal feature of stone bridges, especially where economy of material was a consideration.

Although the space created at road level makes a handy refuge for pedestrians today, bear in mind that providing refuge for pedestrians from vehicular traffic (even the horse and cart) may not have been a consideration when the bridge was originally built... the purpose of extending the parapet wall outwards on top of the 'cutwater' may just be to give the wall lateral stability.

It is useful to compare the plan shape of the parapet wall of Geddington bridge for example to the 'crinkle crankle' walls found in Norfolk and Suffolk - it is an efficient (and light) method of constructing a wall without needing to give it extra support. A plain straight wall without butressing would need to be thicker and heavier to withstand lateral force, and a heavier wall requires a stronger bridge.

Improved pedestrian safety in modern times is likely to be a by-product of structural design, rather than an objective in itself.

Should this thread now be renamed "Design features of ancient bridges" 

[Treetotal]

We need to remember is that this painting is an artistic interpretation of the scene and may not be architecturally accurate.
Carol

[Nick_Ips]

We need to remember is that this painting is an artistic interpretation of the scene and may not be architecturally accurate.

Indeed...

If the painting accurately reflects the structure of the bridge then it looks like the builder(s) did not need to economise on materials and therefore possibly were not short of money. However, with no disrespect intended towards cristeen's ancestor, painters often tend to capture the likeness of structures how they see it, or how they think it should be, rather than in technical detail, so I wouldn't want to draw too many conclusions just based on the painting.

...and in the extreme the whole scene might be made up, or an amalgamation of places the artist knew. But lets hope not, I would love to find out where it is!

[durhamgirl73]

Looks a bit like Framwellgate Bridge Durham - the church looks like st nicholas church in market place?

[Greensleeves]

The picture looks very much like Crickhowell in Powys, seen from the southern side of the River Usk.... except that the bridge is totally different!

[cristeen]

Have removed picture from the frame, sadly no annotations 😔 It looks like it has been painted on a sort of conti-board as opposed to paper

[durhamgirl73]

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louise_Rayner_Durham_Cathedral_from_Framwellgate_Bridge.jpg

Do you think the woman in this picture is dressed liked the one in your painting?