Take the roof off the hothouse, mother--the corn is growing tall tonight!
I wonder what Col Tupper's wares were like. :')
Hi, this bridge was renamed the 'Bataan Corregidor Memorial Bridge' in honor of World War II servicemen who fought in the Battle of Bataan and the Battle of Corregidor on Saturday, December 7 2013. ref: https://patch.com/connecticut/simsbury/bataan-corregidor-bri...
The two obvious choices are Cooper-Hewitt (Trenton Iron Co.) and John A. Roebling and Sons.
The dark horse is Corwin Iron Works out of Lambertville (just up the river) as he regularly worked with Lowthrop.
Trenton Locomotive and Machine Works, maker of the Hamden road Fink, is a possibility but I suspect they were just a division of Cooper-Hewitt.
These are just my initial thoughts. If time permits, I'll do some research.
A likely candidate would be the Birmingham Iron Foundry of Birmingham (now Derby) CT
Art, according to https://books.google.com/books?id=t1dFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA101&dq=l...
a company from Birmingham CT made the frame and a company from Trenton NJ made the tension rods.
Image is of the Riverside Avenue Bridge
Nice find, Chester!
Wow, we miss you Ron Barnes! I just stumbled across this, saw your name. It's a shame that when you are were around I didn't know you were into trains also and possibly abandoned infrastructure also. If anyone else that knows me or (the now deceased) Ronald, and/or simply wants to walk the entire former Waterberry Meriden Connecticut River Line in an upcoming summer, HMU at my first & last name no spaces at cox.net . I'll fly out from San Diego as I do many late summers. Ciao
Manchester Mel! Early Spring
This website here talks about a bridge in Rusk Texas that is 546 ft long and they claim it's the longest Footbridge in the United States. Wrong!
This website here talks about a bridge in Rusk Texas that is 546 ft long and they claim it's the longest Footbridge in the United States.http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM60V4_LONGEST_Footbridge...
If this is a Truesdell patant bridge--and I have no reason to doubt it--then it was most likely erected by the firm of A. D. Briggs of Springfield, Mass. According to the Hartford (CT) Weekly Times of May 17,1873, "In 1863 Mr. Truesdell sold the rights to build bridges in New England to Mr. A.D.Briggs of Springfield, who has erected about 40 of the Truesdell bridges between that and the present time." Lucius E. Truesdell was from Warren, MA, a short distance east of Springfield, which may partially explain why the Briggs company was chosen.
If my eyes don't deceive me that looks like a Truesdell truss. The design & details look pretty close to the remaining example up in NH:
This bridge is a spectacular discovery! It is always a good day when a lenticular truss surfaces. I will have to add it to my Connecticut bucket list.
Thats a beauty...thanks Chester!
This is quite a strong design too, no doubt owing to the industrial nature of its usage. Its quite similar to the Interlaken Mill bridge over in RI ( http://bridgehunter.com/ri/kent/interlaken-mill ) with its floorbeams at or above the lower chord and pinned endposts, never mind the much more substantial upper and lower chords.
Hope they can find a preservation use for this one...its much to important to be left in this condition!
Chester thanks for Sharing, AWESOME!
Best Kept secret! Suggestions for this year?
I'm so glad to see photos!
Is it just me or does that lenticular looks...off. From what I can figure, its missing an entire panel on one side. The end abutting against the covered bridge looks normal enough with the upper and lower chords meeting and the portal bracing offset. The other end has the portal bracing directly on the end, and the lower and upper chord don't come anywhere near meeting.
I'd be curious how this one came to be built like this. Maybe this was a recycled bridge cut down to fit a shorter crossing'?
I agree, more research is needed. But a quick thought on the width though, as I considered that as well: Since the line was operating on a curve, it would have to be wider to accommodate it. I've seen a few other examples in my time where a through railraod bridge was wider then normal to accommodate a curvature.
But either way it was definitely built for some use of the factory complex that was here.
I don't believe this is an old railroad bridge. The adjacent line, which is the old Naugatuck Railroad main, is at a higher elevation. Secondly, this bridge is much wider than a spur line bridge would expected to be--twice as wide as the adjacent main line bridge. Since this used to be an industrial area, my vote would be a private industrial bridge to join buildings on either side of the river. At any rate, more research is needed.
I checked out some old aerial imagery. It looks like there used to be a spur line that curved off the adjacent rail line and crossed the river to serve a factory on Water Street.
I couldn't see any time that it was used for road use though, so I can't speculate as to when or why it was paved over.
Interesting structure Dave thanks for finding, YOU ROCK DUDE!
Art think you deserve a YOU ROCK DUDE! Great research! Thanks for sharing.
Very interesting find here...it indeed looks like a bridge built of the Douglas patent. I have seen occasional mention of Corrugated Metal Co. building a few spans based on the Elliptical truss patent, but these bridges were quite crude and did not hold up well (no doubt owing to some of the design faults visible in the patent drawings, note that the diagonals are sloping in the wrong direction!). It was only when the Yale educated engineer Charles Jarvis was brought in that the design was refined (adding counters to each panel and smoothing out the upper and lower chords) to create the lenticular truss we know.
I'd opt for referring to it as an Elliptical Truss though, just to highlight the difference between this bridge and the extant lenticular trusses that remain today.
The drought is over; Colebrook Lake is full, and The Harvey Mountain Road Bridge is submerged again. Sayonara.
You're welcome! Back then I had a Nikkormat that developed a focus problem at the end of its life. The trouble with film, of course, is that you can't see your pictures for a week or two while the film is out being developed. By then it is too late to re-shoot photos from a vacation or special trip. I like my Nikon D50 now.
Chester thanks! Drove through Waterbury in May of 79, didn't know this was so close. In 79 I was shooting with a Minolta Weathermatic 35DL. Still have can actually take pictures under water when canoe or kayacking. Still think 35mm takes better than digital
Greetings Chester, This was one of the coolest things I've seen on Bridgehunters. Glad to see it was nominated for An Othmar H. Ammann award!
I agree with Robert's comment as well.
I also agree with what Robert has stated here, and do apologize for whatever has happened in the past Chet. Anytime you have a wide-open forum like this one there will be an occasional "Anonymous fly in the ointment" if you will. I like to think that overall we have a good core of folks here that do try to help make this site better... And help one another as well!
Well. Thank you for all the positive comments. I did not intend to air old grievances, but to attempt to explain why I do not post on BH anymore. You are right, though; the website has gone through growing pains and has improved in many ways. I know there are others who stopped contributing as well, irritated and frustrated by a small minority. Frankly, I am surprised and pleased that my participation was noted and missed. Perhaps I need to re-think my decision. Again, thank you, Robert and Michael, for your encouragement.
I thoroughly second Roberts statement and request (In no small part because I couldn't do it myself so eloquently). Having joined this community just over 3 years ago now, I remember having a tough time with it for a while. Getting immediately corrected because you didn't know the difference between a Baltimore and Pennsylvania truss, or adding a bridge and having it immediately edited before completing it was incredibly frustrating.
But I agree that things have gotten better here, as the environment has certainly relaxed. For me it was a good time to come on-board here, as it gave me a strong view of what editorial high-mindedness can do and has contributed to my approach for my work here. I try not to judge though as I feel like we are all after the same thing; to build a complete, comprehensive, and accurate bridge site. Its the method by which we achieve this goal that matters though.
It's definitely a double edged sword with the system here where everyone can have editorial power with no strict guidelines on how things are to be set up. It allows us to grow and develop the community organically, and figure out what works. Of course with this (as with any online community) you can have Trolls and Zealots, who get an outsized power with the editorial control. It has its cons, but I'll take that any day versus a system with moderators and strict guidelines.
What I can say for absolute sure though is that we are poorer here on BH without your contributions and wonderful photos spanning several decades. Needless to say I miss the documentation you've done (especially with the Lenticulars, I sometimes hop over to LH just to look), and would love to see you back on this side.
Thanks Matt for posting this bridge.Being from southeastern Pa i am familiar with lakes when being built oftentimes structures will be submerged.I wouldn't doubt some of the man made lakes here in Pa have bridges underwater besides houses,trees and other interesting finds.
Stick to your guns, Mr. Gehman. Your work is too priceless for you to be subjected to the manipulation by the pains that another writer referred to. Some of them appear to still be very much active. The Landmark site hasn't been infested by them yet.
tl;dr: This website has experienced some growing pains over the years, but it has come out stronger. I hope that our former contributors will return.
I hope that you will return to posting. I won't rehash old history, but there were a few flame wars on this website a few years ago. I have to confess that I finally exploded after constant provocation by the the Half Star Bandit. I took the bait when I shouldn't have.
In retrospect, the website was going through some growing pains at the time. Topics such as railroad names, inclusion of MOBs, mid-20th Century concrete slabs, nice looking modern bridges, non-descript old bridges, etc, all had to be discussed. Over time, I think that we were finally able to work out solutions that improved the website.
Many of us Bridgehunters are very passionate about "our" bridges. We have all driven way out of our way down many a dirt road, sometimes nearly getting stuck, only to find that the 1880s pony truss we wanted to document has been replaced by a shiny concrete slab. Many of us have driven out of our way only to find an empty gap over the river. We have seen people cheer when our favorite cantilever was blown to smithereens. We have seen some older trusses neglected only to become fish habitat when they finally collapsed. Such frustration can easily manifest itself in the forum.
Yet, at the same time, we also realize that state historical societies, DOTs, engineers, and children visit this website. This, we can really do society, and historic bridges, a favor by encouraging quality discussions. It is going to take all of us to change perceptions in this country regarding the value of historic bridges.
My home state of Kansas has neither covered bridges, nor monumental suspension bridges. Thus, we lack the two types of bridges that Americans seem to care about. Yet, Kansas has some Bowstrings, wrought iron Pratt trusses,a variety of other truss types, Marsh arches, stone arches, and other designs that have great historic value. I learned to study and appreciate these overlooked bridges at a young age. It is my hope that these types of bridges nationwide will receive the preservation priority that they deserve. But, we must start by informing the public of their value. We all have a role to fill.
Once in a Life time find Chet! Thank you !
I used to post to BridgeHunter, but deleted all my photos because I felt I was badly treated by some members. I will make an exception in this case, but I generally only post on LandmarkHunter now.
I wasn't sure if Chester has an account, so I took the liberty of adding. This is a great find! We may have to get James (or someone who knows how) to move his photo to the page, if Chester would allow.
Reportedly the bridge was removed several years ago but stored on dry land near the town offices. This still doesn't specify if the bridge was actually scrapped.
Wikipedia mentions that this bridge was removed from the National Register listing in February of this year... Not sure what that means toward the disposition or if it is still in storage here.
Bridge has been removed
Looks like the town is looking to repair or replace this bridge in the near future:
The good news is that in any of the 3 scenarios they intend to retain/preserve this bridge. Of course, "preserved" means different things to different people, so we'll have to wait and see whats proposed to determine how well the plans cater to the needs of this historic span. Right now the bridge retains a very good amount of historic integrity, with the truss and floorbeams fully intact. Hopefully any future plans will maintain this.
Has been replaced with a 10' x 8' segmental precast RC box culvert since last in-depth inspection in 2013 :(
Don't know if you take any pictures?
BTW, The pieces are visible on Google Earth. Find Kosciuszko Park, Stamford, CT and open up historical imagery. Scroll back to 3/2012. The foliage is sparse enough for you to see the pieces lying there in the northwest corner near the water.
It will just take a will and money. I'll leave to the experts to determine if it will require cubic feet or cubic yards of money :^)
Thanks for finding this Chester! Its a sad thing to see a Lenticular in this state, but I'll take "extant" over "scrapped" any day. I'd like to think that there has to be some group that would like the chance to have/rebuild a lenticular, even if it has been torch cut and siting in a pile for close to 30 years.
Thanks for the update!
At least it exists. So, for now, there is still a chance.
PS. A similar thing happened to this bridge:http://historicbridges.org/b_a_county.php?county=Crawford%20...
but its already gone.
NRHP Nomination Attached.
You have painted a rather humorous picture in my mind :^)
We'll need buckets....
I say we...The entire Bridgehunter Nation...Don shovels and dig that sucker out!!! ;-)
No worries. I came across it while doing a category search so I thought I'd ask.
I might have been half-asleep when I made the edit, because I can't figure out how I'd have thought this was a post truss either...
I did a category search on Post trusses and this bridge came up. I'm not sure how this is a Post truss. To me, it looks like the South American viaduct built by Phoenix that incorporates the Fink trusses (minus the multi-panel Finks of course). I didn't want to change it in case I'm missing something.
That said, it is absolutely amazing that the entire 1870's structure, Phoenix Columns and all, remains intact under a gigantic mass of fill!
The Riverside Bridge was not made by the Keystone Bridge Co.
This attribution, which seems to stem from HAER, never made sense to me. Both before and after the date of the bridge's manufacture, Keystone and their chief engineer Linville were strong proponents of wrought iron compression members and were using the Linville patents and Keystone columns.
In a letter published on page 23 of the July 9, 1887 edition of Engineering News, Lowthorp states that Keystone had submitted a competing bid for the bridge's manufacture. https://books.google.com/books?id=syhKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=P...
I theorize that the bridge may have been made by Lowthorp's company but I suspect that fabrication was done by either Peter Cooper's Trenton Iron Works or William Corwin's Lambertville Iron Works. At this time, I have no proof of either.
It is also possible that Keystone erected the bridge at its present location.
Possible historic designation:
I did play under the bridge when I was young. I lived next door and my friend lived on the property where the bridge is located. In the summer, when the water was low, we splashed and played beside the bridge. We seldom ventured under the bridge because it looked spooky to us. My brother had told me the bridge was an historical landmark but I never realize the importance till the flood and I read about it in the paper.
Update and picture:
Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Bridge_(Connecticut)
In this page it says the designer was J.A.L.Waddell.
Thanks Nathan; sort of stumbled upon it myself while photographing the nearby railroad bridge.
Ian: Great find, I was not aware of this one!
Luke I already sensed and figured that you knew it's me however my drawings non of them are traced or rulers used but they're my work.
1.) my drawings are drawn in fully partly and closed positions on some of them and
2.)All my drawings are technical which means I draw them in all detail of mechanism of struts pulleys counterweight and so on
3.)My drawings are not just art but and understanding of how they operate.
1) You're trying way too hard to sound like someone else is defending you, when we all know it's you typing in the third person.
2) While your contributions are greatly appreciated (You've added a fair number of movable spans we would not have listed/known about otherwise.), your drawings are NOT the best REAL-WORLD overview of a structure, which is what the thumbnail is SUPPOSED to be.
Some body is mad because Doug has drawn a lot of bridges over a period of time and done tons of a research of them so if Doug wants to put some of his drawings as a thumbnail well let him it's a free country suppose to be but everybody contributes to bridgehunter of bridges of their own or take photos of their favorite type like a truss cantilever and so on that does research just as often as Doug in movable drawbridges he shares his favorite types also so he is contributing his wonderful work on this site like the rest of you please cut him some slack for God sakes!
Bunch of HATERS !!!
Might want to migrate the HAER photos and the postcard to the predecessor entry- they all depict the pre-1998 structure.
Certainly, this bridge seems to support Ian's statement, since in my opinion it lacks the aspects of design and materials expected in a 1900 bridge.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that most/all of the concrete slab bridges you see on the Northeast Corridor east of New Haven were built in the late 1990s when the line was upgraded for high-speed service. In some cases it appears that they may have encased some of the old girders & beams in concrete instead of replacing them outright, but either way the bridges are generally modern structures.
Going, going, GONE:
The actual length of the swing span is roughly 460 feet. Not record-breaking, but certainly one of the longer spans out there.
The arch is a patented design by Jai Kim where the arch provides load-bearing for live loads... although I recently learned from him that his patented design was sometimes used by companies who didn't use it properly and altered the truss, which he says his original design didn't do.
If this is a truss bridge, what is that arch doing threaded in the middle of the truss webs? The arch and the truss members do not appear to be connected. Was the arch added later to provide added strength? A very unusual structure, that I hope can be saved.
The old topo maps are a help here too. Middletown 1893 NW shows the railroad still complete to East Berlin. Middletown 1952 NW shows the line cut at the East Berlin station with a road to the north. The outriggers on the north side of the road bridge could have supported a walkway for pedestrians. But that girder bridge almost looks too narrow for a track. Maybe it was replaced after abandonment?
Yes, I would definitely agree that it's not a railroad bridge. The "East Berlin" section of TylerCityStation (http://www.tylercitystation.info/stations-e.html) has an 1895 company letterhead showing what looks to be this bridge with the railroad bridge downstream. There seems to be some consensus that the adjacent pipeline bridge is the old RR bridge. There are photos of both bridges here: http://blog.thevalleylocal.net/2015/01/ghosts-of-east-berlin...
Good find, Ian! You are right--the only list I am aware of that includes this bridge is Prof. Lutenegger's at UMass.
I have been meaning to visit the site and finally did today. An interesting feature is the outriggers on the north side of the bridge, whose function is unknown. The bridge is far too light to carry the railraod although the wood under all the debris looks like railroad ties.
Nice little write-up with pictures:
Progress towards restoration:
The HAER aerials on this bridge and the Amtrak Mystic River Bridge (http://bridgehunter.com/ct/new-london/bh61596/) pertain to the predecessor bridges.
Money has been allocated to do a study to determine if the bridge can be repaired for foot traffic:
According to this article, the status should be changed to closed:
The last 2 photos should be deleted and posted at MNCW Norwalk River railroad Swing Bridge it is a bascule bridge on this page.
As far as I can tell, the bridge in the painting in the attached link was either on this road or WIndham Center Road. It is a two span iron through truss with vertical end posts but the diagonals suggest a Lenticular Truss. Are we seeing the actual structure or artistic license? Apparently, this is a significant painting.
Not sure if this is the same bridge but its the right stream and the right road:
Interesting little span!
For reasons that elude me, the SHPO agreed that the work done on this bridge in 1998 was a "rehabilitation" although I would disagree. The entire superstructure was demolished and replaced (and note the UGLY modern railings that replaced the originals), and the approach spans were reconfigured. They did maintain the operational design of the bridge meaning it still operates to a Strauss design meaning you have a second trunnion for the counterweight... which is interesting since it was a style that hadn't been built for 60 years... so as a replica of a mechanical design its interesting, but I have trouble calling it rehabiliation... or even replication given that things like railings, rivets, etc, would not be found on the bridge today.
I'm not sure if this is the same bridge but if it is, they have been trying to unload it since 1986!:
Your "before" pictures that show the RR truss and that map would be great additions to the listing for that RR truss bridge, the big surviving neighbor of your great little bridge.
Great before and after photos. There's so much in those earlier photos that arouses interest, like that pony girder span in the first.
The town is deciding whether the repair or destroy: