On 2014\05\03 16:26, Richard J. wrote:
Basil Jet wrote on 03 May 2014 13:06:34 ...

At Turkey Street Station a brook flows pretty much beneath the station.
Just west of the station is an extra bridge over the river, which seems
to hold nothing except a small shop. I can't understand why a bridge
over a brook would have been built, just so a shop can be put on it. The
only thing I can think of is that the shop used to be a mill, but it
doesn't look like a mill.

Is the shop in the original station building? According to Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_...ailway_station :

"When originally built the station was on the other side of the railway
bridge and a wide footbridge over the Turkey Brook led directly to the
Cheshunt bound platform. This entrance was disused from the early 1970s
onwards and the former station building was converted to a newsagent and
general store, the footbridge was used for storage for the shop and the
entrance to the actual station area had a large iron gate but was
bricked up when the station was rebuilt."

Brilliant, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Which makes me wonder, why are mills usually built astride the river?
Obviously the waterwheels need to be in the river, but the bulk of the
building could be on the shore, couldn't it? Putting the building over
the river seems an unnecessary expense... after all, most rivers do not
have buildings on them, except in Central London.

Although many mills are built astride the watercourse that drives the
water-wheel, the main river is often partly diverted into a narrow mill
race for the purpose. Building across a mill race is much easier than
building across a wide river. In any case the mill contains much
machinery linked to the water-wheel, and it's convenient to house it all
in one building.

I'm not convinced... no matter how narrow a stream is, it won't normally
be built over unless it's a high density urban area. And I don't see the
benefit in anything much being over the waterwheel.. axles of arbitrary
length can transfer the torque to a river bank site, although I suppose
some energy would be lost.

Good to hear from you, anyway! I think it's 3.5 years since I was at a
LURS meeting.