THE 'iron bridge' at Holgate is either an engineering marvel of interlaced metal girders, or - if you happen to be stuck in traffic there - a blasted nuisance.

Whatever your take on it, this railway bridge is unquestionably one of York's more unusual and striking landmarks.

It was built in 1911 - in Derby, no less, by a company called Handyside - to carry road traffic over the railway tracks, possibly on the site of an earlier footbridge. And it was renovated in 2007.

But did you know that back in the 1980s it was also raised - 'jacked up', in British rail's phrase of the day - to create more space underneath so that overhead railway wires needed for rail electrification could be included?

We dug out from our archives a 1985 leaflet produced by British Rail itself which was clearly intended to explain to concerned members of the public just what was going on.

"Holgate Bridge and YOU - the whys and wherefores,"went the headline.

Inside, BR jumped straight in.

"There is no cause for alarm about British Rail's plans for Holgate Bridge in York. Absolutely none," it said, adopting precisely the tone of confident denial that is guaranteed to set alarm bells ringing (HS2 engineers please take note).

The leaflet continued: "The REASONS why British Rail have a plan at all is that they need more space between their tracks and the bridge to put up overhead wires. These will carry current for the new electric railway now being built on the East Coast Main Line."

The leaflet then outlined four options:

- a new bridge, costing about £1 million

- lowering the tracks under the existing bridge, cost £700,000

- building a new deck on the existing bridge, cost £900,000

- jacking up the existing bridge, cost £410,000.

The leaflet then went on to explain why the three most expensive options were not on the cards.

"A new bridge would, of course, be attractive," it said. "But in today's financial climate British Rail does not have that kind of money. In any case, it would involve TOTAL closure of the busy Holgate Road for up to three days - putting a totally unacceptable burden on York's already congested streets..."

Lowering the tracks under the bridge was also ruled out. This would involve 'extremely noisy piling work and spoil removal' and heavy delays to train services. Likewise, putting in a new deck would be riddled with problems. "Road disruption would be severe, with at least 31 days needed for the job... steel fabrication work and the ripping up of the concrete deck and old tramlines would be very noisy indeed."

So oddly enough, British Rail eventually opted for the least expensive option - jacking the bridge up by about one foot. This would require Holgate Road to be closed to traffic at night only (well, after 6.30pm) for about one week, BR said. "This would do MOST for the LEAST COST and LEAST INCONVENIENCE... Cost and Your Convenience have ruled the day." Good to know...

We assume the work went ahead, and that therefore the bridge is now a foot or so higher than it once was. We couldn't find any reference to the work being done in our own archives, which are very patchy.

But one of the conditions placed on British Rail by the city council back in the 1980s before it would give permission to allow the work to go ahead, was that BR engineers should include footways to run outside the bridge girders on each side.

British Rail clearly went ahead and included these 'footways' - although they never seem to have been used.

In August 2003 The Press ran a story headlined 'Rail bridge plan blow'.

"Plans to open a footbridge built more than a decade ago to boost safety for York pedestrians are set to be shelved," the report said.

"City of York Council planning chiefs are proposing to abandon the scheme to complete the walkway attached to the Holgate 'iron' Bridge.

"The council first ordered British Rail (BR) to build the structure in 1988 as a planning condition on the raising of Holgate Bridge during the line's electrification.

"Engineers constructed the footbridge - but never connected it to the pavement.

"Council chiefs now say the scheme is 'seriously flawed' because of the 'complexity and difficulty of building it'."

What was that about wasting public money?