Well yes, except the railways builder obviously had access to a source of bricks, given the brickwork on the station building and the goods shed, so you could put an argument together for either building material…The vernacular buildings on the back scene are mostly stone coloured so stone would surely be the building material of choice?
Dave
Whilst I have a plausible excuse for a double track bridge, some folks tell me it should be a single bridge, so's a built one!
You would be surprised at just how many single line branches had the civil engineering for double track, even when never installed
Perhaps it was deemed cheaper to provide a double track bridge from the outset, rather than having to re-build an existing single track bridge to accommodate double track and still keep trains running past the site of work?Well, the obvious answer is “cost”, but railways did invest for the future, despite being very cost conscious, so it’s plausible either way.
I wonder what a typical bridge cost back in the day. There’s a lot of digging, masonry, woodwork….
My vote is for the stone and why wouldn't you build it big enough for two tracks if that was the intention in the future , which never eventuated.
The over bridges on the Launceston branch were built double track as far as Shaugh Prior Platform, I've not walked the line beyond the entrance to Shaugh tunnel. The route that far appears to have enough land to add a 2nd track.