Forum

< Previous Page 69 of 269 Next >

Post a comment Contact webmaster

Posted February 27, 2013, by Jann Mayer (jannmayer [at] gmail [dot] com)

Is this the only wooden through Howe truss still around? (Not counting covered bridges, of course.)

Posted February 27, 2013, by Andy Peters (anpete [at] yahoo [dot] com)

never mind - I realize it's a Pratt pony truss, not a through truss. I'm changing the design description back to what it was.

Posted February 27, 2013, by Andy Peters (anpete [at] yahoo [dot] com)

The Maryland State Archives link that I posted confirms those are Phoenix columns, and that the bridge was likely built by Dean and Westwood around 1890. The Maryland State Archives document describes the bridge as a Pratt through truss, but the Bridgehunter page initially said Pratt pony truss. I cannot tell which one it is, so I changed it to Pratt through truss, since that's how the state describes it. The State Archives document has a lot more interesting history about the bridge and this specific site.

Posted February 27, 2013, by Nathan Holth (form3 [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Yes, this bridge is composed of Phoenix columns on the top chord and end posts. It was likely built ca. 1885 by Dean and Westbrook of New York, New York. My reasoning for that is because it is nearly identical to this bridge I documented in New Jersey: http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowse...

Old Haletown TN Bridge
Posted February 27, 2013, by Jack Wooten (ackwooten37 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO START ON THIS SUBJECT BECAUSE IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION TO ADRESS. (1) THIS BRIDGE SHOULD NEVER BEEN PUT OUT FOR DESTRUCTION (2) IT IS A HISTORIC PART OF MARION COUNTY HISTORY,PLUS ON N ATIONAL REGISTRY, AND PART OF NATIONAL HIGH-WAY SYSTEM, REPLACED BY NOW I-24 INTERSTATE HWY. THE DESTRUCTION IS DESTROYING LOTS OF MARION COUNTY PIRTICULLARY HALETOWN TN, IT IS AN ABSOLUTE WASTE OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO REPLACE THIS BRIDGE PLUS DESTROY OLD BRIDGE PLUS ANOTHER 140 THOUSAND TO REPLACE HALETOWN WATER PIPE TO NEW BRIDGE, THIS BRIDGE WAS USEABLE UNTIL TDOT WANTED IT TORN DOWN , THIS WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR NUMEROUS REASIONS, (10 TRAFFIC ON THIS OLD BRIDGE DID NOT WARRANT DESTRUCTION (2) PUTTING NEW BRIDGE INTO OLD DELAPATRED 41 AT HALETOWN TN IS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, IT WOULD TAKE BILLIONS ON BILLIONS TO GET THIS HIGH-WAY IN SHAPE TO EVEN HANDLE HALF OF THE TRAFFIC.

ANOTHER WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS, THE PLACED GUARD RAILS FROM HALETOWN TO LOOK-OUT VALLEY NOT MANY PLACES TO PULL OVER., MAKING UNSAFE FOR EXCESS TRAFFIC, THIS BRIDGE SHOULD NOT BE TORN DOWN AND CREATE A MORE TRAGIC AND UNSAFE TRAFFIC ENVIROMENT. THE OLD BRIDGE AT HALETOWN TN SHOULD NOT BE REPLACED JUST TO CREATE A MORE UNFAVORABLE ENVIROMENT JUS NOT FEASIBLE, THIS BRIDGE IS GOING GOING GOING GONE UNLESS TDOT WAKES UP TO TERRIBLE WASTED MOMEY FOR THIS PROJECT AND

I HAVE NOT EVEN STARTED YET,HAVE NOT EXPRESSED VIEW YET BUT WILL CLOSE THIS MESSAGE WITH SHORY NOTE . A TERRIBLE

SITUATION THAT NEED MORE STUDY DONE ON IT.

JACKWOOTEN37@YAHOO.COM

Posted February 27, 2013, by John Marvig (johnmarvig [at] chaska [dot] net)

What I have heard back from the contractor of a local hotel

"The hotel patio design has been incorporated into the River Greenway improvements. The railroad bridge ends just prior to the hotel property line. A public sidewalk wraps around the hotel patio and connects to the bike path on the east side of the property."

Picture of the proposed development below. It sure looks like the bridge was saved...

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=574606132568063&set=a...

Posted February 27, 2013, by Matt Lohry

Looks like the entire upper chord is composed of Phoenix columns...interesting!

Posted February 27, 2013, by Gene McCluney (gmacfilm [at] live [dot] com)

Sure looks like Phoenix columns on the end. This would make this a very old bridge. Pre-1900 I think.

Posted February 26, 2013, by Ed Hollowell (erhollowell [at] aol [dot] com)

"If you don't believe me,..."

I believe you. The same type geniuses are building the 'Bullet train' in California for $100B. Nothing ever changes.

Also look up the Tennessee-Tom Bigby Canal. America has always had a taste for pork.

Posted February 26, 2013, by Bill Eichelberger

Well, that convinces me. You're right. We get tons of great info from the anonymous posters.

Posted February 26, 2013, by J.P. (wildcatjon2000 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Are those phoenix Columns I spy?

Posted February 26, 2013, by CANALLER

A floor beam of the original through truss broke free. New bridge was installed on 2010.

Posted February 26, 2013, by Zac Bucklin (manningjreli [at] yahoo [dot] com)

collapsed and replaced by a new bridge 2011?

Posted February 25, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Yeah...I was thinkin' that "Crapped down my leg" would be more appropriate.

Can't help but laugh thinking what a sight that would be if a train crossed while that dude was on it in the buff!

Posted February 25, 2013, by Robert Thompson

http://bridgehunter.com/category/waterway/wisconsin-river/

http://bridgehunter.com/category/waterway/fox-river-to-green...

The Federal Government took over the Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company in 1870 and ran the entire system until it abandoned the Wisconsin River and Upper Fox River portion in 1951. The Lower Fox River section continued to be operated by the Army Corps of Engineers until the 1980's.

Posted February 25, 2013, by Robert Thompson

1) The swing span is the third span out from the northwest shore. Just checked it out on Yahoo Maps.

2) Quite true "The Wisconsin was never deep enough to handle commercial boat traffic". But that did not prevent the Federal Government from spending millions of dollars per year to maintain the Fox-Wisconsin waterway.

If you don't believe me, take a look at the dam at Prairie du Sac. You will see a large, now disused navigation lock at the west end. If there was no navigation in the river, why was it put there?

Posted February 25, 2013, by Luke Harden (lukemh9 [at] gmail [dot] com)

As long as nobody edits the page (excluding yourself), you should be able to just delete it yourself.

I mean, I've done the same thing a couple of times and just deleted the page myself.

Posted February 25, 2013, by Matt Lohry

Just curious...how did you crap your pants if you were naked? :)

Posted February 25, 2013, by Peter (none)

I crapped my pants while walking over this bridge... in the dark... during a thunderstorm... while naked! I did it on a dare. Go figure!

Posted February 25, 2013, by Luke Harden (lukemh9 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Actually, this is the right bridge, the pin was just in the wrong spot

Posted February 25, 2013, by Have a cup of Johann (johnjohn [at] hmail [dot] com)

This bridge was originally double tracked!!

Posted February 25, 2013, by Johann (johnjohn [at] hmail [dot] com)

Hey Dude! Interesting to know that the Janesville-Rockford Interurban line ran over this bridge until the late 1920s.

Posted February 25, 2013, by Johann Again (johnjohn [at] hmail [dot] com)

And Dude, this is the UP's ex-Chicago and Northwestern giant culvert. The Milwaukee Road's bridge over the same street, is behind you, to the west.

Posted February 25, 2013, by Johann (johnjohn [at] hmail [dot] com)

This tunnel was built first, then the dirt was piled up to it. On this low section of bottom land (and just north of Downtown Janesville) the railroads built wooden trestles then dumped dirt to fill them in. You can still see evidence of this at the bridge on North Main Street, just off Centerway. Rockport Road was Western Avenue when this early poured concrete monstrosity was built. The CNW took old growth trees, alive when Chief Blackhawk was a papoose, right next to the ROW and turned them into trestlework. This entire line, from Chicago to Baraboo, was originally double tracked and was the faster route to the Twin Cities rather than going through Milwaukee.

Posted February 25, 2013, by Johann (johnjohn [at] hmail [dot] com)

Dude, you have a couple of discrepancies regarding this bridge. It is owned by the Union Pacific and LEASED to the WSOR. This is a FIXED bridge-no moving spans. The center span was made beefier to handle the entire weight of a train on the entire formerly double tracked bridge. The reason the bottom beam is painted yellow is so the drunk boaters, on Lake Wisconsin, don't hit it. They do anyway. Before the Wisconsin River was dammed up at Prairie du Sac, the water level was 15 feet lower and any traffic could pass beneath the center span. The Wisconsin was never deep enough to handle commercial boat traffic. You should ask about the Great Railroad Tie hiest from this line. LOL!

Camino Del Rey Bridge (Bonsall, CA) photo/map incorrect
Posted February 25, 2013, by Dave Swinington (drsurfer [at] att [dot] net)

The photo and the map location your site has for the Camino Del Rey Bridge in Bonsall, CA are incorrect. The photo location looks west under the newly constructed bridge on CA-76 and shows the Bonsall Bridge in the background. The map locates the position where the photo is taken from. The actual Camino Del Rey Bridge is approximately 1.8 mile NNW of photo and map locations.

Posted February 25, 2013, by Ken Schroeder (thammorn [at] gmail [dot] com)

Actually, this bridge does not exist in any form. When the original was demolished near 2000, there was no replacement even considered.

Posted February 24, 2013, by Doug Angerman (adlerbeagle [at] gmail [dot] com)

Closed to traffic May 2011

Posted February 24, 2013, by Jusin/Zeek (jschmalzried [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Here are some photos of this old bridge before they took out all but the center span. I have some old family photos of the bridge that I cannot seem to find, so sadly these aren't mine. These are screen caps from a DVD from Pentrex about the rail line this bridge was part of. I highly recommend this DVD to any rail fan.

You can order said DVD here http://www.pentrex.com/rthdvd.html For a nice preview go here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_33Xe9XTMQ&feature=player_embedded.

First picture is a side view of the bridge.

Second picture is a photo taken by someone standing on the curved section of the bridge.

Third doesn't show the old bridge itself, but was taken of the US 27 road bridge, and in the background is the current rail bridge, and was taken standing on the old bridge.

I was really excited to watch this DVD and was even more excited to find these great shows of this bridge before they took down most of it. This program was filmed somewhere in the mid 1990s.

These images are copyright of Pentrex, and were posted with copyright permission from them.

Uploaded file: PNG image, 720 x 540, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced, 787166 bytes

Uploaded file: PNG image, 720 x 540, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced, 760118 bytes

Uploaded file: PNG image, 720 x 540, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced, 664647 bytes

Posted February 24, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Wow...My bad

I had not heard of the Lackawanna Bridge Company...until now!

Posted February 24, 2013, by JIM STEWART (JAMES [dot] STEWART [at] TYLIN [dot] COM)

LACKAWANNA BRIDGE COMPANY, BUFFALO, NY, WAS A FABRICATOR.

LACKAWANNA STEEL COMPANY WAS A STEEL MILL. I BELIEVE THE BRIDGE COMPANY WAS A SEPARATE COMPANY UNTIL THE STEEL CO. AQUIRED IT IN 1921.

Posted February 24, 2013, by Anonymous

I grew up near this bridge. This is also known as Foster Bridge, so named for J.W Foster who owned the land in the late 1800's. This new bridge is the 3rd. bridge in this spot. The remnents of the previous 2 can still be seen down stream.

Forest Grove Bridge in Wycombe, PA
Posted February 24, 2013, by Deborah Fraser (dflady [at] gmail [dot] com)

I'm looking up the date that the bridge was restored after Hurricane Floyd and for some reason nothing is updated on these websites. Guess I take the drive to see if they have the new date on the bridge. Seems odd that there is nothing on this after 20 odd years.

Posted February 23, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Lackawanna would have been the mill that provided steel to the bridge company.

Posted February 23, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I agree Luke...this is a very cool and historic pedestrian bridge. A nice find too!

Posted February 23, 2013, by bb (bussell2011 [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge was built during WWII during the line relocation due to Fontana Dam being built. It was built by TVA from steel reused from other bridges and sources because of steel shortage during the war.

Posted February 23, 2013, by CANALLER

To clarify:

The bridge is a skewed Double Warren design, of which three very similar examples remain in service in the immediate area. There aren't any interior sway braces, nor are there any transverse struts in the upper lateral bracing.

No plaque remains at this particular location, but the others were both built by Lackawanna Bridge, and this one almost certainly was as well. Morse Bridge is now close to non-existent in the state.

Posted February 23, 2013, by Luke Harden (lukemh9 [at] gmail [dot] com)

It's amazing what you find trying to find stuff out about another bridge.

Posted February 23, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I added links to a couple of articles on this unique and historic footbridge. Bridge was taken off of it's foundation to be rehabilitated for continued use as part of a trail system.

Posted February 23, 2013, by Kenn Lantz (kennlantz [at] yahoo [dot] com)

The construction video was on the Grant County website, hope there is some way to retreive it.

Posted February 23, 2013, by Kenn Lantz (kennlantz [at] yahoo [dot] com)

There was recently a construction video of the two bridges on the WA site but it is now gone. I would like to find it again.

Posted February 22, 2013, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

A couple of buildings show on the recent topo and 1923 shows a different channel but no cemetery.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/illinois/txu-pclmaps-top...

Who would want to be buried on Devils Island?

Posted February 22, 2013, by Luke Harden (lukemh9 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Obviously a mail-order sort of bridge, but a lot NICER looking (Images in the link in the sources section.).

Posted February 22, 2013, by Dan Reitmeyer (dan [at] clrconstruction [dot] com)

This bridge finally found a home near Houston Texas. Including a pic of the bridge before being shipped to Texas. It is narrowed to a width of about 9' inside.

Uploaded file: JPEG image data, EXIF standard, 1525658 bytes

Posted February 22, 2013, by Dan Reitmeyer (dan [at] clrconstruction [dot] com)

This bridge is on private property in Vigo county Indiana, north of Terre Haute.

Posted February 22, 2013, by julie bowers (jbowerz1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

that looks great. what a great use and nice design. more saves like this.

Posted February 22, 2013, by dan reitmeyer (dan [at] clrconstruction [dot] com)

This bridge is now located in Indianapolis, just off of I-65 on 86th st. at a private residence.

I have included a picture of the bridge in it's new location.

Uploaded file: JPEG image data, EXIF standard, 1609555 bytes

Posted February 22, 2013, by dan reitmeyer (dan [at] clrconstruction [dot] com)

It can be fixed, we repaired it enough that it could be picked up in one piece and set along the road, to be taken apart

Posted February 22, 2013, by Robert Thompson (rkt [dot] engineering [at] gmail [dot] com)

re: pedestrian walkway

If there were still trains running over the top of the structure, there would be serious worries. But the bridge is massively over-built for the service it sees now.

Posted February 22, 2013, by Jack Wooten (jackwooten37 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

glad you have an old bridge left, i have sent comments and

e-mails for over year trying to save old Marion Memorial

bridge at HALETOWN TN RTO NO AVAIL, THIS BRIDGE COULD BE AN ASSET TO AREA BUT TDOT OF TN WILL NOT EVEN GIVE ME A PEEK OF INFO, THINK THEY HAVE THE DYNOMITE ALREADY IN HARND THIS BRIDGE IS ABOUT READY TO HIT THE TENNESSEE RIVER STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS HISTOTIC BRIDGE NOW, JUST HOPING SOMEONE WITH AUTHORITY SEE THIS IF YOU KNOW A WAY TO SAVE THIS BRIDGE PLEASE REPLY TO THIS E=MAIL PRONTO SOON.

jackwooten37@yahoo.com

5th Annual Historic Bridge Conference
Posted February 21, 2013, by Jason Smith (JDSmith77 [at] gmx [dot] net)

Special announcement: The 5th annual Historic Bridge Conference is coming to Iowa this summer. It will take place August 9-11 and will feature presentations and entertainment as well as a tour of some of the finest bridges in the eastern half of the state and its state capital, Des Moines. More information on the event will be posted in the Bridgehunter's Chronicles and Bridgehunter.com in the coming weeks! Stay tuned!!

Registration opens for the 2nd National Covered Bridges Conference
Posted February 21, 2013, by Will Truax (Bridgewright [at] gmail [dot] com)

tinyurl.com/agmg88b

I'll be part of the Timber Framing / Bridgewrighting demo, and mean to fold into the Preble County tour -

Wondering who among the regulars here I might cross paths with?

Posted February 21, 2013, by ART S (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Nathan, Mine Road bridge looks much better now. It is a pretty shade of dark green and looks like new.

I'll try to get some pictures in the next week or two.

Regards,

Art S.

Posted February 21, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Fascinating...They removed a leg of the bracing in each panel to allow for a pedestrian walkway to be installed. Never seen anything quite like this!

Posted February 21, 2013, by Michael (msh52 [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Was there ever a village on the island and if so, was there a cemetery?

Posted February 21, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Portals and portal bracing suggest ca.1900

Posted February 21, 2013, by Grant Kotz (grantsrentachef [at] verizon [dot] net)

Bridge has been removed and is being replaced. Old bridge will be taken to the Westport fairgrounds and used fot foot traffic.

Posted February 21, 2013, by Gene McCluney (gmacfilm [at] live [dot] com)

Well, with lally columns and pin connections I seriously doubt this bridge was manufactured in 1945, or even installed here in 1945. I say much older, pre-1920.

Posted February 20, 2013, by Luke Harden (lukemh9 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Apparently the BH feature only recognizes IANR as the user, but, according to the IDOT railroad map, UP trackage ends and D&W trackage begins at Dewar, Iowa. The line ownership, according to BH, appears to be Iowa Northern's.

I'll put "IANR Drainage Ditch Bridge" as an alt name, just in case.

Posted February 20, 2013, by Dylan VanAntwerp (dylan_vanantwerp [at] live [dot] com)

Does IANR own any of this line? I know they operate the D&W, which they don't own. Where does the line switch from UP/IANR to D&W?

Posted February 20, 2013, by Dylan VanAntwerp (dylan_vanantwerp [at] live [dot] com)

This bridge has been heavily rebuilt in the recent past. The western abutment and pier are new concrete, and the stone eastern abutment has new concrete work on it. The wooden ties and beams are all very new.

Posted February 20, 2013, by Robert Scoggin (robert [dot] scoggin [at] arkansashighways [dot] com)

I was in Benton County a while back and saw the original plans for the bridge. It was designed and built by the Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Company, Leavenworth, KS in 1911. We will be marketing this bridge in the next month or two to the local towns, federal agencies and historic society. Keep a look out and let these people know if the locals want to keep it and maybe something could happen.

Posted February 20, 2013, by Robert Teal (robert [dot] c [dot] teal [at] gmail [dot] com)

The pistols are not actual pistols. They're just pieces of iron shaped like pistols. I drive over this bridge twice a day on my way to work in Lafayette and on my way home to Sulphur. I have totaled a car on this bridge. An 18 wheeler tire came off and because the bridge is so narrow, I had no where to bail out. I had to eat it and it ripped the entire undercarriage of my car apart. I can assure you, this bridge is a deathtrap. It's also unstable, no matter what LA DOD says. They know that it is structurally unsound as well. What few people realize is that there is absolutely no way to build a new bridge on the present location. In fact, they can't even do much to improve the Westlake exit. Unbeknownst to most, including the people that live in this area, is that the boggy/marshy area to the northwest of the bridge contains a toxic stew of vinyl chloride and polychlorinated biphenyl and God knows what else. If they drive new bridge pilings into this area, they could release these nasty things into the groundwater. They can't build further north because SASOL if expanding their gas plant in that area. They can't build further south because Isle of Capri is there. Catch 22.

Posted February 20, 2013, by Rebecca Burrow (rgburrow [at] gmail [dot] com)

Nice find on that plaque, Mike. While you were out there, did you happen to get photos of any mill marks? My database is pretty low on later examples. Thanks.

Thought there might be interest here
Posted February 19, 2013, by Will Truax (Bridgewright [at] ymail [dot] com)

Both Photographers & Pontists may be interested in this years ASCE Bridge Photography Contest

http://ascelibrary.org/page/2013ascebridgephotographycontest

Posted February 19, 2013, by Rusty Weisman (Russell [dot] Weisman [at] modot [dot] mo [dot] gov)

Although there are published reports suggesting that the Bear Creek Covered Bridge was built by James Key in 1859 - that appears to be incorrect (Hannibal Courier-Post 100th Anniversary Edition 1938, K Allen Ballard 2012 Images of America, Ralls County Missouri). The Hannibal and New London Plank Road and Bridge Co. published a condition report for their toll road in the July 14 (pg 2) and July 21 1855 (pg 3) editions of the Hannibal Tri-Weekly Messinger newspaper. That report lists the Bear Creek Bridge among the company assets- with a cost or value of $3,146.50. It appears from that published statement that the bridge existed in July of 1855.

Posted February 18, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I thought I had seen struts but alas only upper lateral bracing. Reminds me of some Morse Bridge Company spans.

Posted February 18, 2013, by Nathan Holth (form3 [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

As Matt says its one of the Erie Canals numerous surviving historic double-Warren thru trusses, used for many of the fixed crossings. They do omit sway bracing and struts between the top chords. This particular example is skewed, so it has a heavier portal bracing. I believe there are other examples on BridgeHunter, I also have several examples documented on HistoricBridges.org.

Posted February 18, 2013, by Anonymous

Here's the link to a recent phot of the bridge: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nakrnsm/8485830245/

Posted February 18, 2013, by Fmiser (fmiser [at] gmail [dot] com)

It is unusual. I can't tell if it is a lattice.

The main truss web appears to me to be composed of X's with a strut and a tie. The struts are inclined with the top to the bridge center while the ties are opposite. The portal braces are lattice, with each diagonal crossing 3 opposing diagonals.

I don't see any sway braces other than the portal braces either. It does look like it the bridge is skewed. That will do weird things to the end panels.

The upper latteral system is composed of laced beams in a Warren pattern, so they will sometimes act as struts and sometimes as ties depending on the loading.

I'd sure like to get a closer look at this bridge!

Posted February 18, 2013, by Matt Lohry

This bridge has a street view, and it's easy to distinguish its double-intersection Warren configuration. Most of New York's Erie Canal crossings were of this type. A graceful structure indeed!

Posted February 18, 2013, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I am glad to see the discussion that this bridge has sparked. It is interesting to see all of the different opinions among us Bridgehunters.

Can we save every bridge over 50 years old? No, and I do not think we should try to. Replacing a 50 year old UCEB with a new UCEB is fine by me.

In recent years, we have seen a large number of UCEBS with nice features. Ie, decorative railings, fake stone plyons, statues, bas-reliefs, decorative lamp posts, light shows, etc. I don't mind UCEBs with "UCEB makeup". They really do not bother me. In fact, such UCEB makeup can add a little interest to an otherwise mundane structure. The nice railings on the new bridge in this instance serve such a purpose. I just don't think that UCEB makeup should be portrayed as an in-kind replacement.

Posted February 17, 2013, by Justin

This youtube video of the Brimstone Railroad has a shot of the old bridge and also the new one. Skip to around 3:12 or so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEUH8CL5hMA

Posted February 17, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Very cool bridge! Tall trusses with massive portal bracing but yet NO sway bracing...only struts.

No for sure on the truss identification but it could be a Lattice.

Re: Love this place!
Posted February 17, 2013, by Fmiser (fmiser [at] gmail [dot] com)

Welcome, Landaux!

I agree - it _is_ a fine website.

If you have pictures, or enjoy some aspect of documenting old bridges, sign up for an editor account and make the site better!

Hampton Avenue Bridge (South Carolina)
Posted February 17, 2013, by Bennett

This was by far one of the coolest bridges in Greenville and it is a crying shame that it was torn down without any sort of effort to repair it first (like the Queen Street bridge)... I used to ride my bicycle over it nearly everyday or come here to eat and lunch and talk to other people crossing over. The city should at least build something new (and cool) to replace it and reconnect this part of the west side of Greenville to the Hampton-Pinckney area.

Uploaded file: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01, 138827 bytes

Uploaded file: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01, 83364 bytes

Uploaded file: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.02, comment:

Posted February 17, 2013, by Andy (Ab1912 [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I visited here yesterday, it hasn't changed much in 4 years. I captured some more photos of the tunnel. Still looks to be in decent shape though perhaps the creek running threw the tunnel has gotten worse. There is also a hugh sign of a lot of visitors visiting the tunnel which is good in ways, but I worry about the tunnel being ruined or damaged by them. A lot of four wheelers seam to use it to get from one side of the mountain to the other. I think it would be great if the silver comet trail had a extension that took you up to the tunnel, threw it, and then back down to the trail on the other side. Would make for a more scenery and fun ride threw the paulding wildlife management area and would help to preserve the tunnel. If anyone is interested in photos I have about 20+ just contact me.

Posted February 17, 2013, by Susan Fox (jsfox [at] ktis [dot] net)

Thanks to these pictures I was able to win an argument with my husband about the old JB bridge ever being a toll bridge.I Have very strong memories about stopping at that toll booth. As to the comment about why anyone would have a site about bridges....I am 68 years old and my memories about traveling across that bridge as a little girl are as vivid as ever, and seeing the bridge again just brought back all the wonderful memories of visits to reletives in Illinois. I would say that is an excellent reason for having a site like this. Thanks for the memories.

Posted February 17, 2013, by John Marvig (johnmarvig [at] chaska [dot] net)

On the same line as the historic truss bridge in Wayzata.

This is a narrow bridge which snowmobiles will go over at about 45 MPH, and it is slippery. C&NW must have had some value in the old trestle when they took it out

Posted February 17, 2013, by John Marvig (johnmarvig [at] chaska [dot] net)

Trail almost open, permanent handrails to be added next spring, expected to formally open April 2013

Uploaded file: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01, 454215 bytes

Posted February 16, 2013, by Jason Smith (JDSmith77 [at] gmx [dot] net)

Agreed. This contraption (adding MOB trusses on each end) not only compromises the historical integrity of the bridge itself, but it does provide a safety hazard. Consider this bridge one of the candidates of the worst example of preserving a HB.

Posted February 16, 2013, by John Marvig (johnmarvig [at] chaska [dot] net)

I wonder why MOST of the wood trestles on the Luce Line were removed, but not a few. And why would they waste their time trying to take out some timber here, instead of just leaving it in or removing the whole thing?

Posted February 16, 2013, by Matt Lohry

At least the bridge still exists, even if someone that may never use it has it at the moment...there is a chance he may do something with it...if he hadn't "conned" the old bridge out of the county, they would have just sentenced it straight to the dumpster.

Love this place!
Posted February 16, 2013, by Landaux (railmanal [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Throughout the years living in Texas, ive explored COUNTLESS rual county roads on my spare in and around a 100 mile radius from Houston. I have a giant archive of various bridges ive ran into. I also love the history of the roads they come from as well. I now live here in Thibodaux, La. to start a new life and it also has a GOLD-MINE of historical bridges ive ran into here as well as myself! Never knew the ages of them until now! WOW! Thanks! :-)

Posted February 16, 2013, by Brian Lockett (catbus420 [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge should still be there. This railroad was decommissioned a long time ago.

The tracks as far as at least Lebanon were still used in the mid-80's. I remember a train ride from Boston to Lebanon for Ham Days or something when I was little.

Now the tracks are used from Lebanon Junction (where it hits the main L&N line) to New Haven. There's still an old bridge over a tributary of Pottinger Creek, but they're pulled up beyond that.

This bridge would be on the line that currently goes from New Haven on to the main line. There's a Kentucky Railway Museum in New Haven and they have train rides to LJ, sometimes having a "Thomas the Tank Engine" engine.

Posted February 15, 2013, by AR

Damnit. Just...dammit.

Posted February 15, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

WOW!, I certainly would have never guessed that the ruins of this little span I decided to add to BH would create such a maelstrom!

The bottom line here is that we can debate the issue til the cows come home...and it will still come down to a matter of opinion. The vast majority of visitors to this park would never understand what we are disagreeing about...nor probably would they care. They would simply see an old footbridge that was removed for whatever reason, only to later be replaced with a new one. They likely wouldn't understand the historic significance of the original structure, or why some of us think it should have been replaced with a more authentic looking replica. Indeed, some of us bridge enthusiasts are a passionate bunch that think NO historic spans should ever be replaced. However, we have to be realistic about it and understand that bridges will be lost. So when a situation like this occurs where an attempt is made to replace with a "aesthetic likeness", we expect nothing less than a near carbon copy.

So is a vastly different looking replacement span a demon seed? Although I would personally like to see more effort taken to replicate "in-kind", I pull up short of saying the new bridge is totally bad. The historic bridge is gone, and not even an exact replica can change that fact.

It's that fact which makes me want to focus more energy on trying to keep the historic bridges standing...and less on what they are replaced with.

Posted February 15, 2013, by Nathan Holth

Lindsay, nice reflection shot, thanks for sharing!

Posted February 15, 2013, by Nathan Holth

I agree with Roberts comments. And regarding cost if they were short of money they should have went with a more simple railing. In my view the railings they used almost insult the historic bridge, the way they sort of look like the old ones yet are so different and simple. My view is that an exact or at least very close replica is ok if preservation its not possible. But if that is not possible please do not insult the craftsmanship of those who built the historic bridge with a cheap knock off and create a false sense of history.

Posted February 15, 2013, by Lindsay

Turned out beautiful! Wanted to share.

Uploaded file: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01, 1967104 bytes

Posted February 15, 2013, by julie bowers (jbowerz1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Guess that is where a subset happens, the pictures of the What Happened? But not as the main picture of a new bridge where the original doesn't exist anymore. Same applies to all of these.

Its a design issue James.

Parks Rec notwithstanding, they could have done some research and asked some questions,...

Posted February 15, 2013, by Luke Harden (lmharden [at] iastate [dot] edu)

I wouldn't classify it as architecturally significant, but I also wouldn't classify it as "the most fugly bridge on the planet" either.

I'm willingly to make the conjecture that this was the best that they could do under their circumstances.

Parks and Rec departments typically get the short end of the budgetary stick, so the replica was likely the BEST that they could do.

(Who knows, maybe the original parts are locked in a shed somewhere until they have the funds to get a legit replica made.)

Is the replica an architectural novel? Hardly? Is it historic? No, it's new. Is it /REALLY/ as bad as it seems some of you are making it out to be? Not at all.

(also: Sorry anon that complained about these sort of things happening.)

Posted February 15, 2013, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Luke:

I never claimed that you called the bridge historic. If we consider the replacement to be architecturally significant, then the next logical step is to consider a MOB to be an appropriate replacement for a pin-connected truss.

I actually have no problem with new bridges. They are necessary and functional. I just cringe when I see one that is built under the guise of being a form of mitigation for the destruction of a significant bridge. This includes bridges with fake stone pylons, etc.

Just my $0.02. Peace.

Good bridge books
Posted February 15, 2013, by J.P. (wildcatjon2000 [at] gmail [dot] com)

So I have the book written by cooper and my amazing girlfriend got me Bridges by Richard L Cleary. Any other good bridge books I should be on the look out for?

Uploaded file: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.02, comment:

Posted February 15, 2013, by Luke Harden (lmharden [at] iastate [dot] edu)

So what quite a few of you are saying is essentially you saying is along the lines of "UGH THEY DIDN'T DO 100000% WHY DID THEY EVEN BOTHER?"

That is /not/ a healthy nor a logical reaction to be having.

Also, in case you've misread it, I did not call the new bridge historic.

Posted February 15, 2013, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

If they had to demolish the old bridge, I would just as soon see a UCEB with New Jersey barriers, than the current structure.

This replacement is not historic, and in my opinion should not be portrayed as such.

After Soldier Field in Chicago was redone, I fully supported its removal from the NRHP (sorry Bears fans). The new Soldier Field has been redone so heavily, that it bears little resemblance to the old structure. It is no longer historically significant, save for being a war memorial.

I feel the same way about this bridge. The substructure was the most structurally significant part of the old bridge, and it is gone now. The replacement is just a plain stringer with a couple layers of makeup.

Posted February 15, 2013, by julie bowers (jbowerz1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Can not be called Cast Iron anymore....How about Glen Miller Park Modern Footbridge.

I don't agree that trying is enough. Not anymore.

Rather like Sutliff only it cost way less to us taxpayers.

Posted February 15, 2013, by Don Morrison

According to wikipedia, the Louisville and Jeffersonville Bridge Co was formed in 1887 to build the bridge. Due to accidents in construction, they went bankrupt and sold it to the Big Four.

So, apparently, they were a consortium of local interests that wanted to construct and own a bridge. This is the only bridge they were associated with.

Posted February 14, 2013, by Luke Harden (lmharden [at] iastate [dot] edu)

The fact that they at least made SOME effort to replicate the bridge AT ALL is good, in my opinion, because I'd rather have had them build an "At least they TRIED" "replica" span than just built a 2X4 bridge, or even worse, just left the space bare.

It's not exactly a win, but it's not exactly a loss either.

Posted February 14, 2013, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I had seen this little bridge many times and had crossed it as well. I'm not sure what was behind it's demise but it was definitely unfortunate.

The replacement is a mixed bag. It's obvious that no effort was made to replicate the original structure, and the railings look like something that could be ordered out of a catalog.

Yes, they could have simply left a gaping hole there and perhaps they were working on a limited budget... But I have seen way too many good replications to be completely satisfied here.


< Previous Page 69 of 269 Next >