Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Spinalman

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
31
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
« on: November 02, 2018, 08:08:27 pm »
This is my best estimate footprint based on the photos, the concrete footings / remains and the bungalows/Bank in vicinity.  Plan superimposed over 1946 OS sheet, and 2015 Google Earth

32
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
« on: November 01, 2018, 10:54:45 pm »
I knew we'd find another reference to the hangars, in plain sight. Here is the Bungalow Town Property Map of 1917:
http://www.shorehambysea.com/bungalow-town-property-map-index/

33
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be! (Seaplane Base?)
« on: October 23, 2018, 04:56:24 pm »
This Newspaper extract refers to the plans for a seaplane station in 1913:

Brighton Seaplane Station. An important scherne is on foot to construct hydroplane station at Southwick, near Brighton. A company connected with Bungalow Town have formulated plans for certain improvements and the construction liangars. Tliev are negotiation ...

Published: Friday 12 September 1913
Newspaper: Luton Times and Advertiser
How this ties in with Volks' temporary canvas hangars at Paston Place Seaplane Station is unknown:
http://regencysociety-jamesgray.com/volume6/source/jg_06_089.html

This Newspaper extract refers to the existence of sheds in 1922:

The rapidity with which bungalows are springing up at Shoreham and Bungalow Town is ..... of the ever-increasing popularity and wealth the district. Where the seaplane shads stood before they were dismantled a short time ago is now ...


Published: Saturday 13 May 1922
Newspaper: Worthing Herald

34
Shoreham Discussion / Re: Mystery Tower - Nab Light
« on: October 23, 2018, 10:03:36 am »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExjQOhPUdfQ

BBC visit the new Nab Tower

35
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be!
« on: October 19, 2018, 05:54:17 pm »
Surely in the annals of the war department they must have some records of it ?
Are you volunteering to look up the annals?

36
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be!
« on: October 19, 2018, 04:06:38 pm »
Thank you Paul, the dream is still alive! (well, the discovery of a possible seaplane site anyway)
maybe mention it to SAS or Newhaven Museum... they might send Tony Robinson to dig up the beach.

37
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be!
« on: October 19, 2018, 02:47:02 pm »
Do you find that after a while doubt starts to creep in about things you were sure of to begin with? I’m having one of those moments now – the 1949 image shows wooden piles in front of the ‘ramp’ that surely would have impeded aircraft there. Additionally there appears to be a wall on the seaward side, not a ramp. Look at the 1924 photo, that seems to have a wall too that would have prevented aircraft from being wheeled up there? Were they after all merely sea defences for the properties behind?

Hi Roger,

Yes I did look and check. Those sea defence piles/groynes are not in the 1920's photos. The western ramp has posts that could be demountable, and are most probably retrospective installation ( for windbreaks, remnant of garden fence?).    Earlier the Western ramp appears to have been entirely walled at some time - presumably new owners wished to enclose their plot of two houses. (to avoid a council assuming it was theirs and build a plastic boardwalk on it.)
The 1924 image also shows a pedestrian access through the centre of the seaward wall, a rail carriage on the plot and a marquee on the grass. I am guessing both the houses were maybe using that as access to the sea. Maybe they were a holiday camp /guest houses. Timaru and Lalerne

As for the wall to the eastern ramp - look at the people clustered on that right hand bit - are they on a ramp or sitting on the lowest part of a wall. What is more interesting is there seems to be a full width step in the ramp at the back...  So what would be the reason to build such a structure after 1927 and before 1946?   Leisure?   Edit: Looking to the East then the now demolished Lido (extant in 1938 but gone in 46)  may explain why they built the Eastern Ramp/structure.  I can only think they tried to Butlinfy the beach to be thwarted by the war.

I think the fundamentals are correct:

We have a clear image of two hangars in 1921-1923. We have a concrete pad and ramp that was there in 1924.  Both structures look identical to a similar one at Newhaven.  We have a seaplane tender being stationed at Shoreham Harbour during the war.  and we know that Piffard had a plane in the old Lifeboat station adjacent to our site.   What other post-war austerity reason could anyone have to build such structures?

38
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be!
« on: October 19, 2018, 01:12:36 pm »
RNAS Newhaven has a website. Maybe Shoreham was an annexe?

http://www.cherrymortgages.com/historic_britain/RAF_Newhaven_Seaford_Bay_Air_Station_WWI.htm

The photo of the hangars looks, to me, to be very similar to Shoreham.(120ft x 50ft – approx. 36.6m x 15.25m)... and the layout would fit at Shoreham. Newhaven opened in 1917 and disbanded in 1919.
Interestingly, Newhaven was surveyed by SAS in 2009.
One of Newhaven's bigger hangars is still in use- in Wimbledon.

39
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be!
« on: October 19, 2018, 12:54:59 pm »
I bet whoever built that swimming pool will have had to dig through a few feet of concrete!

What is interesting is that the Western ramp is there in 1924. The additional eastern ramp is there in 1949... built after the hangars had been removed. So why would anyone invest in building a second ramp (between 1927 and 1946) to be adjacent a redundant but servicable ramp to the West?  It is evident in 1946. Was there a temporary, bigger seaplane base there during WWII possibly?  we know that there was a Walrus Squadron of Search and Rescue at Shoreham - Would it make some sense to have amphibious aircraft on the beach?


40
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be!
« on: October 19, 2018, 12:52:54 pm »
I am a bit concerned about the loss of the airport pill boxes though – I hadn’t heard about that. I see the official progress report states that they will ‘remain as islands’ – hasn’t that happened?
There is a lively spat on FB about some of the pillboxes being carefully archaeologically explored, recorded, photographed and then covered in a few tons of earth to "preserve" them and prevent damage from vandals.  There was PR statement about intending to make islands of them but word has it (and I am not in Shoreham so can't confirm) that they buried them and the PR was all talk.

41
Shoreham Discussion / Re: 1891 Images of Shoreham
« on: October 19, 2018, 09:38:09 am »
Thanks, but a correction,there was a gate in the fence so the path was not blocked...will have to pop up there some time to see the situation.
Well a gate can be locked. If it is an established right of way then it should not be gated without permission. We have a similar situation where I live and the landowner is trying to stop badgers with a gate and fences - but the Council are insistent that no gates, stiles or bollards can be used.

42
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be!
« on: October 19, 2018, 09:30:53 am »
Curiously the 1949 detail shows posts in the front of the ramp.  And secondly there is another walled ramp to the East that sits closer to the sea... I wonder if this was a later extension or a separate structure?

Nelson. How big is your spade? Fancy nipping over the bridge and shifting the shingle to find the concrete ramp?

There is a certain irony in that the Council are about to embark on laying another £100,000 of plastic boardwalk over this bit yet are oblivious to the potential archaeological discovery beneath. Oh well - add that to the newly buried Pill Boxes that are lost forever at the airport!

43
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be!
« on: October 19, 2018, 09:26:29 am »
By Jove! I think you have the conclusive proof there Nelson!

I have had a revisit the OS maps and have tried to provide an accurate marker on current plots. This is my best estimate based on the ramp and the homes that were demolished prior to WWII.

44
Shoreham Discussion / Re: No - it can't be!
« on: October 18, 2018, 10:11:29 am »
Hi Nelson,

I think all map references are especially suspect in this location and especially during this period. The maps we have seen are often revisions or 20 years out of date either way, and bungalows here were often temporary, and of course the beach properties were built, demolished, built again during the war and again afterwards.   So some plots in and around Ferry Road have seen 5 or 6 properties in the space of 50 years.  The maps don't seem to bear much correlation to equivalent date aerial photos. Whilst the hangars could have been demolished without a trace, the concrete pad would have been less easy to remove... I wonder if anything remained?

45
Shoreham Discussion / Re: 1891 Images of Shoreham
« on: October 18, 2018, 09:15:55 am »
Some time back a short cut from Connaught Avenue to the Upper Shoreham Road had a fence built across the entrance,I enquired as to if this had a right of way but was informed that there was no registered owner.

In which case there may be a right of way as unfettered use was established.  If there is a recent notice served withdrawing right of way then that may indicate if an owner has come forward.  Either way - whoever put up the fence would need to establish right to put up such a fence.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9