< Previous Page 49 of 329 Next >

Post a comment Contact webmaster

CSX Transportaion
Posted April 12, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I notice that for the "categories" on a page CSX Transportation is denoted as CSX Railroad which of course is not the name of the railroad portion of the company and I also noticed that CSX is used for a reporting mark which when used for CSX Transportation is also incorrect it should be CSXT which is the actual reporting mark for the company. As I understand reporting marks, "X" at the end denotes ownership by a leasing company or a private owner.


Posted April 12, 2015, by Jason Smith (flensburg [dot] bridgehunter [dot] av [at] googlemail [dot] com)

More funding possibilities for the bridge available. There's a Mayor's Run/Walk on April 18th. T-shirts are being sold and donations are also being taken by the DM Community Center. More information here:

Posted April 12, 2015, by Tom Dowell (Dowell_tom [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I grew up right by this bridge on Davis Ferry Road! I have lots of fond memories of the land, the river, and that bridge! Caught my first sturgeon underneath it. I moved into town in 1991 and finally to Indy in 1997 and haven't seen it since, everything looks mostly unchanged, glad to see the old neighborhood one more time!

Bridge comment
Posted April 12, 2015, by Anonymous

Some ideas to consider when arguing over the reporting marks:

--First and foremost, it's the guy that owns the site's decision. He can have it any way he wants, regardless of what other users tell each other to do.

--The "MARK - Creek Bridge" format is far from foolproof. It can't do anything to improve listings for a rail line that crosses the same creek many times, of which there are many in my area. It also can't do anything to address that since the Class I's have thousands of miles of track across many states, they're bound to cross different creeks with the same name that could be hundreds of miles apart.

--The covered bridge format might be able to appease those who insist on retaining the reporting marks. By putting the covered bridge number after it's name, at least the alphabetical order is still kept in place.

--The guy that wanted to add his "two cents" presents an intriguing concept. For the most active users, if they donated two cents each time they made another mindless comment or meaningless edit, they'd add up into the thousands of dollars. That'd make a nice party for everyone.

--As stated by a very knowledgeable guy, most rail companies simply number their bridges, either sequentially or by mile post from one end of the line. They're only concerned with keeping the bridges open and moving tonnage over them, not the semantics debate that has clogged up this forum.

--The other guy who worried that users might start pulling their pictures is well-meaning at heart, but late in his assessment. At least four people have removed everything recently. They all have tremendous knowledge, and many of their pictures of really rare structures would be difficult (if not impossible) to duplicate, so the rest of the group has lost out.

--In addition to those people who've left recently, there are many others who've done so over a longer period of time. Take a look at the contributors' list: As it stands now, there's around 300 folks listed. Then take a look at the updates list from the last few months: The vast majority of them have been submitted by a dozen or so very active users. What this means is that a large group of named contributors have gone months (or even years) without participating any more. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons that people move on to other things in life, but it's certainly possible that some of them just don't want to read the constant arguing any more, nor have their bridge pages changed instantly by people who should just leave well enough alone, unless they know better for a fact.

Posted April 12, 2015, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

Just a thought: The 1927 quad shows a slightly different alignment of the N-S road where it crosses the ditch. Currently there's a UCEB crossing on that road. Perhaps this bridge was moved from just south.

Posted April 11, 2015, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The 1885 span was a very long Columbia Bridge Works structure.

Posted April 11, 2015, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

That's a beauty Erica!

The date is located in that circle in the middle of the plaque (last 2 years), as it is an 1800's span. I cropped and sharpened to attempt to see the year, but the algae made it difficult. It looks like it could say 87 but I'm not positive.

A nice find and add!

Posted April 11, 2015, by erica

So glad to see that somebody finally put the old Marseilles bridge on this site! That was a very fascinating (yet creepy) structure!

Posted April 11, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Cool Pics here.

I am assuming the dimensions are estimates as the bridge is no longer there. But I was wondering how you estimated the span length? Were there other Piers on site?


Posted April 11, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Hey Chris Cates

This page also doesn't match the image on google or the NBI. This bridge I think might belong at a different location


Posted April 11, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Hey Chris Cates

I was doing the To Do list and notice this page is not for the bridge at this location. I searched around the Area and was unable to find the bridge you have listed on this page. Could you look it over. Thanks


Posted April 11, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

OK so this is awkward. In doing the to do list I came across this bridge that was being called a pony truss. It is evident that it is indeed a Through truss not of the pony variety. So after I went and said don't change other peoples bridge names I just did it. Sorry. However the bridge name was "CR 178 pony truss" so I felt it really needed to be changed. Please forgive my hypocrisy.


Reporting marks and bridge names
Posted April 11, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Ok, so I am a newbie to the site and for me it doesn't matter weather we use reporting marks or not. I just want that said up front. But being a new researcher I would like to say and this is certainly only my opinion it seems to me a bridge would be easier to find for the average person if the bridge were name after the obstacle it "bridges". For seasoned researchers and highway and rail fanatics it is of course easy to research when you know everything about how to go about it, where to find the publications ect. If you are not from an area and the bridge is not a well known bridge even the common name doesn't really help. How are you supposed to know the common name? How are you supposed to know what railroad it is? However the location is an easier why to find a bridge. It doesn't matter if there are 10 bridges over "Sand Creek" at least you've narrowed it to ten... then the state narrows it.. then the county and finally seeing them on a map and you can figure out which is the one. So searching UP or U P or UP- or Union Pacific begins to be frustrating especially since I basically can't find hardly anything about RR bridges unless they are well known. And everyday UP-NS-BNSF-CSXT-CN (what? there are Canadian RR in America?) get bigger and more and more bridges to wade through to find what your looking for or I can try to figure out the common name? How the hell do you do that for a bridge in the middle of a forest in the middle of nowhere. So either way there are problems searching. As long as the search engine will search for any of those terms..RR-common name-geographical feature ect then there really isn't to big a problem. I don't see changing the names of someone else's bridges as a good thing either since the search engine searches work for all the above what is the point. Now I have seen what I consider just plain ridiculous names on some bridges so a guide for new people (like me) might be a good idea ie 1. try to find common name 2. the object it bridges 3. the railroad it's on ect ect whatever James decides is a good way to go about it. So that's my 3 cents and I am beginning to see the old adage "K.I.S.S." really makes since when naming a bridge

Reporting Marks and Picture Merging
Posted April 11, 2015, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)


To move pictures that are not yours will require the webmaster. Contact him and hopefully he can handle it soon. Myself and others appreciate the hard work you've put in towards making this site better!


While your opinion is valid, there are still concerns I see. For someone like me, who uses the Reporting Marks to sort bridges when I'm trying to track down something (oftentimes for research, reference or to plan a trip). Having 4 different "Fourmile Creek Railroad Bridge" (see Polk County, Iowa) is not going to work, without separation by reporting marks. As I've stated before, I have no problem phasing out reporting marks for a number of bridges. These bridges all have common names readily available, which most commonly come from ways people would search for them, including, but not limited to:

Park Name Railroad Bridge

City Name Railroad Bridge

Landmark Name Railroad Bridge

Local Nickname

Other Name Railroad Bridge

As Luke stated, a county which has many different railroads crossing a certain barrier benefits heavily from classification via reporting marks. It creates easier organization uniformity and simplifies entries.


Unfortunately this is not a railroad history site. I wish it was, as it would make my own work that much easier, but the goal here is bridges. We have made an attempt to give the past railroads the glory they deserve, however they no longer exist. People are a lot more likely to find the current owner than a railroad that has been defunct for 40+ years. In addition, even if we do pull the Reporting Marks, the bridge will still identify as the current railroad it carries. However, I do also disagree with the hyphens, however I was the minority when I protested against them.


I will respect James' decision. He is the creator and webmaster. I may not agree, but I will respect it. However, I do find several errors in a seemingly short sited response. Not only will the site become messy, but it'll be harder to work with, and may no longer be satisfying to contribute to. I know I am not the only member who has seen it like this. I propose a pair of potential acts of mitigation, which hopefully will satisfy the majority of contributors. I've always prided myself on ability to compromise.

1) Edit reporting marks out of brides with common names (see examples above). Leave reporting marks on railroad bridges with no common name, such as XX Creek Bridge or XX XX Road Overpass.

2) Create a secondary title for all bridges, one fitting common names, and one fitting reporting marks. However, "XX Creek Rail Bridge" will still be a secondary title, as it is unspecific.

This weekly firestorm of fury that seems to be provoked through the smallest edits is getting old. I know a number of members have decided to lessen the importance the hobby has to them because of it. Please also remember that as Nathan stated, we look silly to professional firms and individuals; especially when we begin making this personal. I feel if this goes on for much longer, we may have users begin pulling their contributions, some of which may be priceless. (Note that was plural, in case there is intent to scare off an individual). I also think it is disrespectful to James, as well as other serious individuals when we argue like children on here. I know a number of viewers have said to me that they do not enjoy the site as they did before, which is too bad. This is a great site, with great information and great contributors! Everyone on here has worked too hard in one way or another to feel like their contributions mean less because of silly disagreements. Honestly, we are almost all adults (I've got 6 months to go :D) so lets all contribute to the hobby we have a passion in!

Incorporating owning railroad in bridge name
Posted April 11, 2015, by Chester Gehman (gehmanc2000 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

My vote would be for dropping reporting marks as part of the name, and, as the webmaster has proposed, identify the using railroad as a category.

First of all, railroads don't always name bridges. They are usually identified by mile markers. So, if there is a bridge between milepost 178 & 179, it would be Bridge #178. If more than one bridge exists in that mile, the first bridge is 178A, the second 178B, and so on. Obviously, naming a bridge 178A on BridgeHunter is not a viable option. Naming a bridge after the street or river it crosses is perfectly acceptable, (unless the bridge has a preferred local name.) The question arises "What if two or more bridges cross the same body in different locations?" In these cases, the location pin on the map should clear up any confusion. If the railroads bridge number is known, this could be included.

One of the problems I have with including reporting marks as part of the name has to do with historical accuracy. For example someone added "EL" (Erie-Lackawanna) to the name of the Manunka-Chunk Tunnels in western NJ. These tunnels were built by the Warren Railroad mid-nineteenth century and became part of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RR's main line until the New Jersey Cutoff was built, making it a little-used branch line. By the time the DL&W merged with the Erie in 1960, very little if any traffic passed over the line. I'll bet an EL train never used those rails.

As others have said, this site is used by folks who may not be either pontists or railfans, and just want to find out about a local bridge perhaps, and our job is to present the data in as logical a way as possible. Maybe we should have a straw poll to see which way the wind blows.

Posted April 11, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I am totally cool with whatever s done with the pages I was just trying to help out with the to do list. I don't know how to move pictures to other pages. If someone could tell me how I will do that


Posted April 11, 2015, by Zachary S

This... is a weird bridge. It looks like it was made by putting together random truss parts, and I don't even think it functions as an actual truss.

Bridge comment
Posted April 11, 2015, by Don Morrison

The bridges with generic "creek name here bridge" can still hopefully be found by location, assuming the location is correct.

Maybe County/Exhibit functionality should be a little more obvious for those searching for generically named bridges.

Perhaps nearby bridges could be shown on the bridge page map with a different color (grayscale) pin or something.

Also - if somewhere there exists a "Sh*t's Creek", I wouldn't want to be UP - Sh*t's Creek looking for a bridge over it, so I agree the reporting marks shouldn't be part of the name, but "Creek Name Here RR Bridge" is good for me. At least that separates the generic RR bridges from generic road bridges. 8^p

Posted April 11, 2015, by Don Morrison

That's cool, but should spread those pictures to their respective bridge page, and give Patrick his due for the essay on each page.

Maybe Patrick could come by and provide some finishing touches.

to virtually no resistance myriad of benefits to using them
Posted April 11, 2015, by Patrick Feller (nakrnsm [at] aol [dot] com)

Luke, "in use on this site since well before I signed up in 2011, to virtually no resistance to their use" is hardly a ringing endorsement for the use of reporting marks (with hyphens) at the beginning of the title of each railroad bridge.

As to "Additional categorization and identification" those will be accomplished by having the reporting marks (sadly probably without hyphens) in the categories.

What are some of the other "myriad of benefits to using them", with hyphens, at the beginning of the bridge title?

Again, the issue is not at all whether reporting marks (with or without hyphens) have a place on the bridge's listing. They, of course, do. The issue is whether they should be at the front of the bridge title, resulting in, for one example, 33 of 123 listings for one county beginning with "UP -"?

RE: Worked fine for years
Posted April 11, 2015, by Luke

What I mean by "worked for years" is that reporting marks have been in use on this site since well before I signed up in 2011, to virtually no resistance to their use. In fact, I remember using Bridgehunter as a source for a paper in 2008 and seeing a bridge with a reporting mark in the name. Only recently has their been any real contention* over their use. (*By "contention" I mean you being exorbitantly belligerent about them.)

There are a myriad of benefits to using them (Additional categorization and identification, for starters.). I'm willing to gander that if you put those biases of yours aside for a yoctosecond, you may notice some of them.

Reporting marks and Bridge Names
Posted April 11, 2015, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

The debate has had much input here from all points of view for many months.

The owner of the site has no doubt read them and carefully considered what he wants for his site.

He has provided a place we can put reporting marks for all lines associated with a bridge.

I will fully respect his decision.

Worked fine for years
Posted April 11, 2015, by Patrick Feller (nakrnsm [at] aol [dot] com)

Luke, what does "worked fine for years" look like? What has been accomplished by going in and changing bridge names to names beginning with the reporting mark (and hyphen) of the railroad that currently owns the right-of-way? What has the benefit been?

What has worked is having category listings for the various railroads that have operated on the bridge. What has worked is having category listings for the current owner of the bridge. What will work is adding reporting marks to those category listings.

What is working when there are 33 out of 123 names in one county that begin with "UP -"?

RE: Reporting Marks
Posted April 11, 2015, by Luke

My two cents:

I agree with removing the reporting marks from bridges with common names, I don't agree with removing reporting marks from all entries.

As John has pointed out, most railroad bridges don't have local/common names. As a result, removing the reporting mark makes the names for these entries generic, and in several counties that have several bridges over the same stream "X River Bridge/Y Creek Bridge" could be confusing to users. As Justin also pointed out, having "X River/Y Creek Railroad Bridge" in counties with multiple rail lines can also lead to confusion

It's best to edit these entries on a strict case-by-case basis, not a wholesale "let's expunge something that's worked fine for years because someone can't go a week without complaining about it wants them gone."

On another note, if all reporting marks must go because the railroad categories now support them, will James remove all World Guide to Covered Bridges (WGCB) inventory numbers from bridge titles as well, because those have had their own box (Inventory Numbers) for ages.

To quote a personal email correspondence between James, Myself, and the person who added all the WGCB inventory numbers to the titles, "They're no different that reporting marks".

Posted April 11, 2015, by Luke

Lovely shots!

Posted April 11, 2015, by Howard Keil (Howardkk [at] comcast [dot] net)

Now missing plaques from concrete piers on Peoria side

Posted April 11, 2015, by Howard Keil (Howardkk [at] comcast [dot] net)

Slide scan 1956- from other direction-Peoria side headed toward Creek Road

Reporting Marks
Posted April 11, 2015, by Patrick Feller (nakrnsm [at] aol [dot] com)

Those "No Trespassing" signs sometimes spell out the railroad name, sometimes give various abbreviations. The most recent one that I snapped a photo of said "BNSF Rwy Co.", but most people researching a bridge won't be that close to it. Many will be trying to identify that bridge they saw downstream as they drove across Sand Creek.

The Bridgehunter listing for Harris County, Texas has 123 bridges. Of those 123 Titles, 33 begin with "UP -" and two more begin with "UP". In most of these, the reporting mark is a recent addition or change. Those recently applied reporting marks often replaced the railroad name or abbreviation most often associated with the bridge.

What is the benefit of having a reporting mark and hyphen at the beginning of a bridge name?

In more commonly used names there will occasionally be names of railroads (past or present) or commonly used abbreviations of those, just as there are highway and street names. That isn't the issue.

There's no formula for commonly used names, no set format for a name. It's reporting marks and hyphens that are formulaic.

James, if you can remove the reporting marks (and hyphens!) from many titles in one swoop, please do. A great place to start would be Texas and Louisiana.

Your provision for them elsewhere gives the all the benefit without the problems.

Reporting marks
Posted April 11, 2015, by Anonymous

Do the no trespassing signs reflect these historic companies? I don't think so. They reflect the current owner, and oftentimes have the reporting marks on them. 10% of railroad bridges have a common name. For the others? Pulling reporting marks will screw up the enteries.

RE: Reporting Marks
Posted April 11, 2015, by Justin

The problem with using generic names like "sand creek railroad bridge" is that in certain counties/dense metropolitan areas with multiple railroads, having 13 different "Sand Creek Railroad Bridge" could itself lead to more confusion than someone's inability to use ctrl+f would.

Re: RE: Reporting Marks
Posted April 11, 2015, by Patrick Feller (nakrnsm [at] aol [dot] com)

I am certainly in favor of phasing out reporting marks in bridge names, the sooner the better.

The person who was so eager to honor UP's increasing share of rights of way in the region where I live and bridge hunt and research, ignored the fact that so many of the older railroad bridges are still referred to (by local historians and bridge and rail enthusiasts) by the railroad that built them or operated them through most of their histories. So GH&H and HB&T and TN were removed from bridge names and dozens of bridge names were changed to begin with UP - UP - UP - ...

One point is that, in this case, the person who renamed the bridges knew only how to determine who owned the right-of-way, but was clueless on the history and commonly used names for the bridges.

UP and others will continue to acquire right-of-way, but that is only the last sentence of the last paragraph of the last page of the bridge's history and how it is commonly and locally identified.

If someone is looking for that railroad bridge crossing Sand Creek that was recently acquired by UP (-), a reasonable place to begin the search is indeed the stream it crosses and how it was used, so "Sand Creek Bridge" isn't bad, or "Sand Creek Railroad Bridge". If people refer to it by the railroad that operated it for generations, it may be "MoPac Bridge" or "SP Trestle". The commonly used name may indeed begin with a railroad name or abbreviation, but in naming all railroad bridges beginning with the reporting mark of the current owner of the right-of-way, we hinder rather than help research.

•San Gabriel River Bridge
Posted April 11, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

•San Gabriel River Bridge

Picture 3 is a different bridge

Posted April 11, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Created pages for 6 of the other bridges. Cant find bridge number 6.


Posted April 11, 2015, by Don Morrison

Easier said than done; ended up using the coordinates of the 7th bridge, I guess. 8^p

Posted April 11, 2015, by Don Morrison

Since Patrick said that he entered the coordinates of the first bridge, but they are not there now, I will add them.

Posted April 11, 2015, by Don Morrison


If you edit the bridge page, you can input the coordinates. Since this entry covers several bridges, the coordinates have apparently not been entered, just listed in the description. Perhaps each bridge could be entered on it's own page, or a set of coordinates of the first bridge or central to all the bridges could be entered to this page.

Posted April 10, 2015, by K. A. Erickson

A recent accident involving a SUV veering off the L Street Bridge onto Interstate 5 snarled traffic for miles. Drivers diverted to the side roads. Soon afterwards "Undisclosed structural damage", per the city of Tacoma, caused the Eells Street Viaduct (Puyallup Ave) (this bridge) to be closed indefinitely. The 11th Street Bridge is permanently closed. Your alternates are now sitting on WA 509 forever or go right-left-right across the renovated Lincoln Avenue Bridge and still get stuck in the mess. The Port of Tacoma is in consolidation mode with the Port of Seattle. With extra space would they reconnect 11th Street over the Blair Waterway and fix the bridge at the Puyallup River? A bascule was at Blair before. It can be done again configured to accommodate the Leviathans they build these days. It's not as like any more construction in the area could hurt. Pacific Avenue Bridge is gone. Work is starting on demolition and replacement of the Interstate 5 Bridge over the Puyallup River. This song best represents the city of Destiny and its surroundings,

He'll be making an appearance at the Puyallup-Western Washington-Washington State Fair on Monday, Sep 14 at 7:30pm

•Cane River Private / Semi-private Suspension Footbridges
Posted April 10, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)


For the Cane River footbridges on the to do list you have "find coordinates". They are listed on the page. Is that what you want? Or do you want a separate page for each of the eight?


Reporting marks
Posted April 10, 2015, by John Marvig

So my concern is then, what if the bridge crosses a creek and the name is "UP Sand Creek Bridge"? Then what? Does it just become "Sand Creek Bridge"? While its a good idea to have common names for some bridges, not all bridges (and I doubt a majority even have common names) should still have reporting marks.

RE: Reporting Marks
Posted April 10, 2015, by James Baughn (webmaster [at] bridgehunter [dot] com)

I've recently added a new feature that allows reporting marks to be included with the railroad category pages:

The neat thing is that each individual bridge page now has a section that shows the railroads associated with that bridge and the reporting marks. Plus, the reporting marks are searchable along with the rest of the bridge information with no extra work required.

So now there's really no reason to put the reporting marks in the bridge names. Patrick Feller makes a good point that this has been causing the alphabetical order to be thrown off. Take, for example, "NWP-Haystack's Landing Bridge." The average visitor is expecting to find this under "H" for Haystack instead of "N".

I've been dealing with a surge in the number of duplicate bridges I've had to merge or delete lately, and I suspect this is a big reason why. I also get messages like "Why don't you have such-and-such bridge listed?" when in fact we do -- just under a different name than expected.

So unless you all have any objections, I'm going to start phasing out the reporting marks in the names: I can remove many of them in one swoop using automated tools.

Bridge comment
Posted April 10, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This bridge is on the to do list. My guess would be a Howe truss based solely on the look. It is a steel truss "howe"ver and I know that is not a design used often with steel. Anyone agree or disagree?


CR173 Bridge (Missouri)
Posted April 10, 2015, by James Baughn (webmaster [at] bridgehunter [dot] com)

The Missouri Historic Bridge Inventory from the early 1990s lists a total of 9 documented bridges in Monroe County built by the Decatur Bridge Co. In particular, the county signed a contract with the company on June 5, 1912 for seven steel bridges. The inventory says that this contract is "located in file drawer at Monroe County Courthouse."

Posted April 10, 2015, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

That sure looks like a Massillon plaque in the last photo!

Posted April 10, 2015, by Bill Eichelberger

These are photos of the original bridge taken by the father of a friend around 1975.

Re: Bridge near Lottie, Louisiana
Posted April 10, 2015, by K. A. Erickson

Lesa Brose, it probably was the Morganza Floodway Bridge.

Completed 1945.

Reporting marks, etc. arguments
Posted April 10, 2015, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Nathan, Luke, Patrick,

I think you guys don't understand the passion and enthusiasm of railroad buffs, I think they are known as Foamers, bring to their hobby and to some extent here. For some perspective:

As long as the database and forum can easily accessed, you are facing a formidable challenge!


Art S.

Bridge near Lottie, Louisiana
Posted April 10, 2015, by Lesa Brose (lbrose [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I am trying to locate a bridge near Lottie, Louisiana that my grandfather helped build in the 1940's. He worked there for 5 years and I believe the bridge was completed in 1945.

Posted April 10, 2015, by Rob Vance (rvance [at] egcc [dot] edu)

The creek passing under this bridge is actually Cross Creek. McIntyre Creek flows into Cross Creek a half mile or so up stream.

RE: Reporting Marks
Posted April 10, 2015, by Luke

+1 for a separate box for reporting marks/highways/trail names.

RE: Reporting Marks
Posted April 10, 2015, by jayhawk

Bridgehunter is essentially a front end for a database. As a database, each field should only have one piece of information. The title should be the bridge's name, and the railroad reporting mark should be a separate field. Including both in the title is poor database design - bridge names and reporting marks can change independently. With the data in different categories you make searching easier and you make changing batches of data easier. If the reporting mark is included in the title, you have to change each entry individually.

As a compromise, could the GUI be changed to show the reporting mark field in a similar fashion to the status and date on the search pages? We could even limit the possible reporting marks to the official ones and have them display the common name of the railroad (CSXT would show up as CSX Railroad) as text.

re: Flawed arguments
Posted April 10, 2015, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

There are some people on Bridgehunter who forget a few facts.

1. We all have a limited amount of time on this planet. I sure wish I had so much time on my hands that I could argue about hyphens. If I did have extra time, I would instead spend time improving more substantial aspects of bridge pages. If you wish to make more meaningful improvements to this website than adding or removing a hyphen, please visit this link which the webmaster of this website has very kindly provided.

2. Newspapers, DOT's, schools, and other important and major organizations are all potential viewers of BridgeHunter so name-calling might not present the more professional image of the historic bridge community... which is not helpful to those of us who actually want to save some of these historic bridges.

Flawed arguments
Posted April 10, 2015, by Anonymous

"Highway names/numbers are a highwayman thing, they don't belong in the title"

"Street names are a civic planner thing, ithey don't belong in the title. "

This is how stupid you sound when you think that railroad names/reporting marks shouldn't be in the title.

CR173 Bridge (Missouri)
Posted April 10, 2015, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Nice find!!!!

Feel free to make arguments otherwise, but in my opinion this bridge was not built by the Decatur Bridge Company. Unless a devastating flood occurred in this area historically, there is usually little to no relationship with bridge builders in terms of crossing the same river. Bridges on the same road... sometimes... but even then often you will find bridges of different vintages and builders. Moreover, this bridge lacks the design details of other Decatur Bridges on Bridgehunter. Its lattice mesh portal bracing, riveted angle(I think?) struts, etc are different, particularly from the Peterson Bridge.

Also note that this bridge (or its caissons) has moved significantly such that it isn't resting even close to center on the caissons. This bridge is therefore at risk for eventual collapse.

SNAFU - Reporting Marks in Titles
Posted April 10, 2015, by Patrick Feller (nakrnsm [at] aol [dot] com)

A - good - illustration - of - the - problem - presented - by using railroad reporting marks in titles is the bridge listing for Harris County, Texas:

Someone insists on changing commonly used names by placing reporting marks for the current railroads, and hyphens, at the front of bridge names, ignoring the common locally used name for the structure and ignoring older railroads that may be more commonly associated with the bridges' history and important in that historic context.

What results is that about half the bridges don't show up until one gets to "UP -".

The reporting marks are a rail fan thing. They - don't - belong - in - the - title.

Posted April 9, 2015, by Anonymous

Funny, I distinctly remember the website coming to an agreement that CSX was preferred, and you telling James to delete all of your content because you didn't get your way...

Posted April 9, 2015, by Matt Hamel (mhamel [at] pa [dot] gov)

This is the phoenix truss from near Washingtonville, given to Knoebels by PennDOT: .

Posted April 9, 2015, by Marvin Trevino (trevino [dot] marvin [at] gmail [dot] com)

I remember in the late 70's to early 80's riding our bikes out to this bridge. We would ride up Treaschwig and hop the fence at the curve. On Google maps you can still see the dirt road. At that time, more of the bridge on the south side was still up, but hanging down into the water. You could still see the roadway (although a little overgrown at the time) on the north side and a few of the pillars. We always wanted to ride up the road just to see where it went.

Posted April 9, 2015, by Harvey Henkelmann (ferroequus [at] live [dot] com)

It's regrettable that people are allowed to use technology to bully their edits on this website, one of the reasons why I no longer contribute to

Re: Mystery Bridge
Posted April 9, 2015, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Thanks Don and Luke... and yes it was the historical society who contacted me.

Posted April 8, 2015, by John Thomas (jrtdat [at] live [dot] com)

In 2001 I took my dad, JP Thomas, to see where some of his family lived. One was the town blacksmith and made parts for the bridge. He bought an engine lathe to make some of the rivets and bolts needed on the bridge. The Thomas family members are now all buried in the local cemetery. Dad told me of the many times the town flooded. The lathe was not used much after the bridge was built. The lathe was slowly covered by mud and silt when the shop was flooded many times. Dad believed it was where the fire station was in 2001.

Posted April 8, 2015, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Thanks, Nicole. Please keep us posted. This is a nice bridge in a nice location.

Posted April 8, 2015, by Chas Johnson. (Chas john 2001 at yahoo dot com (no spaces) )

I have a photo of the original 1882 trestle. I will scan and post soon.

My father rode the Santa Fe to California around 1912. The pic is in a booklet called "Along The Santa Fe".

Posted April 8, 2015, by Nicole Beck (prairieroads06 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I will keep my fingers crossed! It's a lovely truss. The article also made some mention of keeping it in place at a pedestrian-only limit, which I think is unlikely. It would be much better if the farmers could continue to use it.

Posted April 8, 2015, by Karen Daniels

An image of the bridge under construction, courtesy of the Missouri Digital Heritage Web-site:

Re: Mystery Bridge
Posted April 8, 2015, by Don Morrison

If that line was abandoned in 1939, the iron probably went to the war effort in 1942.

Posted April 8, 2015, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Ah yes, April Fool's Day marks the beginning of truck attack season!

Sounds like a terrible situation for the neighbors.


Art S.

Posted April 8, 2015, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)


I didn't read the fine print. In light of my experience, I think your statement is very accurate.


Art S.

Re: Mystery Bridge
Posted April 8, 2015, by Luke shows the TMER&L line crossing the White River below Dam 2WP311, and it appears as if "Geneva Street" may have crossed there as well.

Posted April 8, 2015, by Rebecca (Rgburrow [at] gmail [dot] com)
Re: Mystery Bridge
Posted April 8, 2015, by Don Morrison


Was it someone from Burlington WI historical Society that sent you the postcard picture? They do have the picture in a postcard collection on their site.

Anyway, a 1908 plat of Burlington shows a proposed electric railroad whose tracks as shown would have crossed the White river approximately where Milwaukee Ave is now.

The Electric railroad was built and existed circa 1909 to 1939. Not sure if the line crossed the White on the proposed marking, but if it did, it required a bridge of approximately 200 ft, and there is a riffle in the river just north of Milwaukee Ave at about the position of the proposed electric rail line.

This would possibly result in a scene similar to the postcard. Not sure about the buildings in the background. It depends on how the camera was positioned, I guess.

Something to consider, anyway. I was in the mood for a mystery tonight. 8^)

Mystery Bridge
Posted April 7, 2015, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Got an email from Burlington, WI:

The following postcard is labeled Burlington, Wis. However, there is not (and never has been) a bridge or such a setting in Burlington, Wisconsin. Since there are about 30 Burlingtons in the U.S. (Vermont, North Carolina, Iowa, etc.), wondering if anyone in your group can place where this bridge exists (or existed)?

Posted April 7, 2015, by jayhawk

Sad news. This is the bridge that started my interest in bridge photography. I was actually here again in December - the approach spans and spandrel columns are in pretty bad shape. I'll try to get the photos up soon.

I hope it's bypassed like the Eminence Bridge a little further south.

Posted April 7, 2015, by Michael Jones (mjones160 [at] comcast [dot] net)

I mistook the Lamm Road Overpass for the Yellow Creek Road Overpass. My comments on what was hiway 20 from Freeport to Rockford belong to the Yellow Creek Road Overpass.

Posted April 7, 2015, by Michael Jones (mjones160 [at] comcast [dot] net)

The road that goes underneath the overpass used to be part of route 20 to Rockford from Freeport. As you can see it was very narrow as route 20 was only 2 lanes at the time. This would have been sometime in the 1950's before the 4 lane hiway replaced the old 2 lane. As a little boy I remember coming up to the overpass when a tractor trailer was already coming from the other direction. My parents got the car stopped in time. Not a very safe place back then.

Posted April 7, 2015, by Diane (vbvixendi [at] aol [dot] com)

From MoDOT's Southeast District Press Releases

March 31, 2015 08:58 PM

Route 19 Sinking Creek Bridge in Shannon County Reduced

Yield Condition, Weight Restriction

SIKESTON-Following routine inspections, the Route 19 bridge over Sinking Creek near Round Spring in Shannon County has been reduced to one lane with a weight restriction of 20 tons. The reduction will stay in place until funding for a bridge replacement becomes available.

The bridge is striped and marked with signs. Motorists are urged to use caution and watch for opposing traffic when traveling in area.

For additional information, please contact District Construction and Materials Engineer Andy Meyer at (573) 472-5296 or Assistant District Engineer Chris Rutledge at (417) 469-6239.

Posted April 7, 2015, by Jo McPhail (jomcph [at] bellsouth [dot] net)

Reference to a bridge on Butler's Creek which may or may not be this bridge. If it is, the date of the document may be important.

Posted April 7, 2015, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

It would be easier and cheaper to restore a rusted out and deteriorated truss than acquire one from a railroad. Note the requirement that the new owner assume all responsibility for removal of bridge within a window of time specified by the railroad. Also note requirement to pay scrap value of $25,000. Also, railroads usually have additional costs like you have to hire flaggers for the railroad, etc.

With the dramatic increase in replacement of active RR truss bridges, combined with how difficult RR companies make it to relocate and reuse said bridges, railroad truss bridges are rapidly becoming just as much at-risk for demolition as highway trusses.

Posted April 7, 2015, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Hopefully you can work something out with them. The hip verticals on this bridge are really interesting. They have a four-pronged design that seems to be rather uncommon.

Posted April 7, 2015, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Rust free California bridge, for sale cheep! :^)

They should put it on Craigslist!

Posted April 7, 2015, by David Johnson (dave [at] aaronswan [dot] com)

I am a civil engineer who recently inspected the Coolidge Dam bridges under contract for the owner (BIA). The bridges are currently open for vehicular traffic, not limited to pedestrians only. Although not posted now, we recommended a weight limit for the bridge. Also, the information we had showed construction was in 1928, not 1930, with reconstruction (I believe predominately in the spillway areas) in 1995. There are about 30+ additional bridges and culverts on BIA Rte 3 east and west of the dam that were constructed in the same period as the dam construction.

Posted April 7, 2015, by Julie Bowers (jbowerz1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

We have found a county administrator interested in our services. Keeping this one open is an option. Our proposal is in and the supervisors have to vote. Workin' Bridges was a referral by KSHS and we hope to get out there this spring, Robert. The direct quote is "if we can fix this one for a fraction for access by the local landowners there might be some financial benefits".

Posted April 7, 2015, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

It is good that the commissioners consider it worth saving. Although not actually the third oldest bridge in Kansas, it does have plenty of unique details not typically found on post-1900 bridges. Julie and Nathan have some good connections for metal bridge restorations.

Posted April 7, 2015, by don quinn (gasman2000xxx [at] yahoo [dot] com)

as of 4-6-15 this bridge is still there

Posted April 6, 2015, by Charles Sledge (chev292 [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I have lived next to the BOGLE Rd Bridge for 69years and crossed it every day without any fear of danger until it was closed Last year.

It has needed replacing because of the one lane and bad approach limiting some large farm equipment from going thru.

Also one could not have a load of concrete or other heavy loads come in that way.

As for normal cars and pickup trucks there was no problem.

It is very inconvenient not being able to go 4 tenth of a mile to be on 4 lane highway instead we have to detour several mile to get to same 4 lane highway.

Sure will be GLAD to see a new Bridge Built.

I see that Bridge everyday and it has a lot of Memories since I grew up here next to it but if we get a GOOD new Bridge I Don't care where the old Bridge Goes or it can just set there.

Posted April 6, 2015, by Nicole Beck (prairieroads06 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

From the Abilene Reflector-Chronicle, April 6, 2015: "What do we do about this old bridge?" By Kathy Hageman. "The 110-year-old bridge located at 3200 and Oat Road is the oldest bridge in Dickinson County and the third oldest in Kansas. Although members of the Dickinson County Commission agree the historical bridge is worth saving, they are undecided on what steps to take and how much money should be spent in the process. Late last year, state engineers closed that fracture critical bridge and two others following an inspection that reduced their weight limits to zero."

Posted April 6, 2015, by Ralph Demars

This bridge is gone.

Posted April 6, 2015, by Craig Philpott (cphilpott [at] puc [dot] edu)
Posted April 6, 2015, by Craig Philpott (cphilpott [at] puc [dot] edu)


Posted April 6, 2015, by Mary A Brown (mabrownindy [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Is metal detecting allowed in this area?

Madison Bridge (Pennsylvania)
Posted April 6, 2015, by george oakley (georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

this article was taken from the reading eagle dated per the article engineering and design plans will begin this year.the engineering phase will determine whether the county will repair,replace or demolish this bridge in favor of a new bridge that realigns keim street.montgomery county will cover 60% of the engineering costs and chester county will cover the remaining 40%the actual work I feel will not begin for quite awhile yet.if anybody does hear of any additional information on this bridge please let me know because I am from that area being Montgomery county not far from Pottstown.thanks.

Posted April 5, 2015, by Max Koehn (mkoehn45 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Drove over the new bridge just today. You can see how the road curves as it crosses the flowage. It appears the new bridge was built just west of the old one

Posted April 5, 2015, by Jim S

Gone via 3/24/14 satellite

Posted April 5, 2015, by Luke

KCS appears to own the line now.

Posted April 5, 2015, by Bill Graber (foursecretary [at] aol [dot] com)

Actually this carried another branch of the GM & O that went southwest out of Springfield. It lines up with the current line that runs over south of Jacksonville. Not sure who the line belongs to now.

Posted April 5, 2015, by Bill Graber (foursecretary [at] aol [dot] com)

This wasn't on MacArthur Blvd. It was over the ITRR right of way that went south to St. Louis. It was abandoned sometime in the late 60's when they dismantled the long iron trestle over the GM&O that went east along Stanford Ave.

Posted April 5, 2015, by Barry (bllauver [at] toad [dot] net)

Google Earth shows bridge removed (not 45-deg view).

Bridge comment
Posted April 5, 2015, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Thank you Matt

Posted April 5, 2015, by Ian Martin

Based on the 1954 aerial, this was a through truss swing with two truss approaches. The wider piers on the current bridge show the 1915 span lengths.

Posted April 5, 2015, by Barry (bllauver [at] toad [dot] net)

Is it possible that you are both correct? The Chessie System was a merger of the Chesapeake & Ohio with the Baltimore & Ohio, sometime in around 1970's, I think. Did the Ohio RR lease from B&O or the Chessie (C&O,B&O)? I don't know.

Posted April 5, 2015, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Checked out the rehabilitation the other day. It appears the county and railroad invested money into making this arch able to last for a long time to come. A concrete floor, patch work on the lower walls and some ceiling stabilization have all helped preserve the structure. Because of the recent rehab, one is now able to walk through the arch with little to no effort. Congratulations to Blue Earth County and Union Pacific Railroad for making the right decision to preserve this historic artifact!

< Previous Page 49 of 329 Next >