Forum

< Previous Page 69 of 333 Next >

Post a comment Contact webmaster

Posted October 26, 2014, by Dylan VanAntwerp (dylan_vanantwerp [at] live [dot] com)

Also I edited the waterway name from "Big Soap Creek" to just "Soap Creek". I lived in the area many years and have never heard of Big Soap Creek; it was always just Soap Creek. Also, every single map I've ever looked at lists it the same way. My guess is the railroad plan is slightly in err, or perhaps they listed it as "Big" to underscore the fact it was a different bridge than other Wabash bridges in the area. After all, the railroad crossed numerous creeks in the area, including several Soap Creek tributaries. A few miles north of this bridge, the railroad crossed over Little Soap Creek; they may have deliberately called this one big to avoid any confusion with any other bridge. Big Soap Creek even might have been an old name for this creek that fell out of favor as time passed by...

Posted October 26, 2014, by Dylan VanAntwerp (dylan_vanantwerp [at] live [dot] com)

James Holzmeier:

First off thanks for digging up that old Wabash info! I grew up in Davis County, but I was born way too late to ever see anything of the Wabash or Rock Island in the area. The Wabash line wound its way through a lot of hilly country and crossed over several waterways in the process. It must have been quite a scenic line, but one that was almost never photographed. I have scoured the internet and only come up with a handful of photos of the Wabash/N&W operations in the area.

The two bridges I listed as Soap Creek Trestle North and South are not the approaches for this bridge. They were further south along the line about a mile from this bridge and within a short distance of each other. One was just south of the former railroad crossing on present day Lime Trail, and the other was just up the valley from it a hundred yards or so. They were timber stringers that crossed over a nameless(?) tributary of Soap Creek that flows into it fairly close to where the truss used to be. Sorry if the names caused any confusion. I just tend to list a bridge by the closest known waterway.

I started at Lime Trail a few years ago and walked up the old ROW to the former bridge site. About halfway between the road and the Soap Creek Bridge was a low area that was crossed by another timber stringer. I listed this as the Soap Creek Bottoms Trestle. Farther north is the remains of the main Soap Creek Bridge itself. I didn't see any remnants of a south approach trestle, but it must have been very short so the dimensions you have match up. There are remnants of the south timber piling abutment poking up out of the bank, as well as a timber piling abutment on the north side. The north one looks essentially complete, while the south abutment has had much of the top chopped off.

North of the bridge are the remnants of a long approach trestle, which again matches the dimensions you found. Many of the pilings still stick up several feet in the air, while others were chopped off pretty low. The whole area is getting overgrown, but that is no surprise considering it was abandoned in 1982. Interestingly, in the woods off to the west of the north approach trestle are some large pieces of a railroad car. Apparently there was a derailment in the area at some point in the past and several large chunks of the car remain.

I took a bunch of photos of the area, but it was all done with a low-quality cell phone camera, and I lost a lot of the pictures when I upgraded. Someday soon I'll get back down there and thoroughly photo-document everything.

2014 Othmar H. Ammann Awards- now taking entries
Posted October 26, 2014, by Jason Smith (JDSmith77 [at] gmx [dot] net)

Now taking entries for the 2014 Ammann Awards by the Bridgehunter's Chronicles. More information in English and in German by clicking here: http://thebridgehunter.areavoices.com/2014/10/26/now-taking-... Deadline for all nominations is December 1st. Voting will take place on December 3rd with voting opportunities available both online as well as via paper ballot. More info to come soon.

Posted October 26, 2014, by James Holzmeier (wabashry [at] gmail [dot] com)

The north span of the bridge fell into the Des Moines River early on February 13, 1973. The collapse isolated a MILW Fairbanks-Morse switch engine on the south side of the river for awhile. The collapsed span was replaced with the girder span by January, 1975. Source: Michael Johns

Posted October 26, 2014, by M C Toyer

Thanks for the additional input.

Did not intend to seem argumentative. I'm new here and just trying to work through the protocol and pecking order. I admit I can be a bit anal about details. It just seems to me the bar is set a bit low for presenting and updating information without valid sources and the end result is misleading and perpetuates errors.

I contacted the author of the "newspaper" article. He is an accomplished and award winning photojournalist who relied on local historians for the bridge date. I contacted several of his sources, guys I deal with on a regular basis - real "boots on the ground" researchers who live in the area and are familiar with all things rail related and local history. To a man they agree the bridge was original to the line built in 1903. The errant 1923 date seems to have originated with a spur built in the vicinity that year, though not near the river crossing, and the switches and track modification related to the spur construction. They will be changing their blogs and photo captions but the newspaper article is probably out of their control.

I will be posting some photos of the bridge I took several years ago and take a new set soon. Will also post links to my sources' blogs.

Thanks to all. Now back to the hunt.

Posted October 26, 2014, by Steve Conro (sconro [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Just listed it

Posted October 26, 2014, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

To the right of the bridge in picture four, there is a stone arch. Is that already listed on here?

Posted October 25, 2014, by James Holzmeier (wabashry [at] gmail [dot] com)

Appears to be...

Posted October 25, 2014, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Is this a vertical endpost double whipple?

Posted October 25, 2014, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

James,

Step up and take the lead, its doable. You are saying 'someone ought to'; that someone is you.

The bridge's preservation is on your shoulders.

Good luck, I really hope you succeed!

Art S.

Posted October 25, 2014, by James Holzmeier (wabashry [at] gmail [dot] com)

Very nice essay, Dylan Van Antwerp...thanks!

Posted October 25, 2014, by James Wireman (jameslovesbridges_86 [at] ymail [dot] com)

Hello Again, I am still Begging you To Not Tear this Bridge down Even When the New Bridge is in Place. I know it can be saved for Preferably a Frontage Rd. Bridge. I know its Days a not Quite numbered yet. I know that bridge can be Kept for at least another 10 or 15 Years or Maybe even Another 20 Years. I don't want this Bridge to Go so soon. I want to still be able to go across it Be cause I love that bridge so much. So please don't let this bridge go, I mean please don't Let them tear this Bridge down. I know this bridge can be saved for either A Frontage Rd. Bridge or even a Pedestrian bridge. I just don't want there to be another Historic Bridge wasted. It doesn't Get anywhere near as much traffic as the old Macarther bridge that used to be on the Mississippi River in Burlington, IA did. It was also a bigger Federal Hwy. too. U.S. 52 isn't As big of a US Hwy. as U.S. 34. so I know this Bridge can still be Saved Preferably as a Frontage RD. Bridge.

Posted October 25, 2014, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

The bridge was torch cut along lines provided to workers. The metal decking is not still obvious on the site but stringers and the rest appear to be present. Trusses are in three pieces, top braces and floor beams removed in one piece, cut near each end. Cut ends are marked, presumably to aid in reassembly.

Approach spans are being demolished today (Saturday). Although this is not a major artery, there is construction work on the parallel I-70 viaduct going over the bottoms, so having this completed would help with congestion.

Posted October 25, 2014, by Jeff Zader (jeff [dot] zader [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Was just by here 10/18/2014. Still there.

Posted October 24, 2014, by Neil Bronner (neilbronner9 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I just drove my 40 ton 18 wheeler over this bridge earlier tonight for the first time. I remember the first time I tried to cross it was closed. I was nervous crossing it... especially when I noticed another 18 wheeler crossing in the opposite direction! Not sure how we both got past each other without losing our mirrors!

Posted October 24, 2014, by Darren (dannytoro1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

The old St.John's River Toll bridge was built by Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co.; and designed by J. L. Harrington of Kansas City, Mo. Also quite a bit of the steelwork was prefabbed by Bethlehem Steel. This according to: http://www.jaxhistory.com/Jax%20Arch%20Herit/D-98.htm

Also, if memory serves correctly, the structure itself stayed remarkably solid for a brackish water major bridge. However the main pilings had been badly undercut by the heavy current in this bend in the St.Johns.

Posted October 24, 2014, by Jessiee (jessieerenaee42 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I really wanna know if the bridge is still haunted or not since they re did the creepy thing... mee and the boyfriend n family want to go see it and see if its really haunted or not. email me if you know anything about the bridge thanks.

Posted October 24, 2014, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Clark,

Do you by chance have any closer photos of the dismantled bridge? I am curious if the bridge parts were removed non-destructively (ie rivet removal) or if the members were simply cut with a torch.

Posted October 24, 2014, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

It was disassembled this week. It will sit on the river bank until funds are in to relocate it to Grandview.

Posted October 24, 2014, by Luke

The portal bracing is also similar to a lattice that was built by AmBridge in 1901 on the RI mainline up here in Iowa.

Posted October 24, 2014, by Luke

There's a outline where a manufacture's plaque used to be that fits the outline of a pre-1909 American Bridge Co. plaque.

Posted October 24, 2014, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Hey, if you can find evidence to the contrary by all means go ahead and update the page. However, information about historic bridges is often hard to come by, and you can't always expect to find a peer reviewed article or primary source document with the information you want. The date I posted came from a print newspaper called Fort Worth Weekly. Possibilities for the 20 year bridge life: the 1903 bridge was destroyed and the article simply hasn't been found yet. Or, an old bridge might have been reused in 1903. Also, 1903 is a little late, but maybe not too late... a lot of 19th century RR bridges only lasted 20 years because of rapidly and unexpected increase in RR loads/traffic. Also on the other side of the spectrum, 1923 could be a typo, and instead should indeed be 1903. Its only one number off.

Posted October 24, 2014, by M C Toyer

Well, I'm not 100% ready to say that might not be correct, but there's a lot of guys who ride bicycles around the city and take pretty pictures. But where is the documentation?

It is a fact the Rock Island Railroad between Fort Worth and Dallas was built in 1903. It is a fact the Rock Island contractor completed the large iron bridges in Dallas and Fort Worth in May 1903 and the Rock Island had been building similar large iron bridges in Texas for a decade by them.

I've not found any record of a bridge at that particular location being destroyed then replaced with this one. It is not likely they would have built one originally with a 20 year life span.

Posted October 24, 2014, by Lyon Wonder (lyon_wonder [at] yahoo [dot] com)

The brand new 4-lane US 34 bridge is now open to traffic, which takes US 34 off the old toll bridge.

http://www.radioiowa.com/2014/10/22/multimillion-dollar-brid...

Posted October 23, 2014, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

thank you sir

horrible lighting though bunch didn't come out well enough to post

Royce

Posted October 23, 2014, by Luke

Excellent photos, Royce.

Posted October 23, 2014, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Also, the sidewalk is "technically" closed to pedestrians because of a peregrine falcon that I guess had either attacked someone or they thought it might attack someone. Although I pretended I didn't see the sign and walked the bridge earlier this year and all the falcon did was squawk and fly around.

Posted October 23, 2014, by Robert Elder

These are some great photos. Post away I would say. This is such a spectacular bridge!

Posted October 23, 2014, by Robert Elder

I drove across this bridge today but I didn't stop for photos as I was a little short on time and the bridge has been covered pretty well on this site already. If you haven't visited this bridge yet you still have time as the new bridge is not too close to completion yet. That being said you want to get here soon as you can.

Posted October 23, 2014, by Robert Elder

Did they replace it with a steel arch?

Posted October 23, 2014, by Robert Thompson

You talked me into it.

Posted October 23, 2014, by Robert Thompson (rkt [dot] engineering [at] gmail [dot] com)

Well.... it wasn't EXACTLY "the catwalk tour". I was one of the rappellers. Rope #5, 825 feet. If I can get my GoPro video trimmed down to size, I might consider posting it. But I'll see if I can peel some stills out of it so I don't overwhelm the site's bandwidth.

Posted October 23, 2014, by Mike Boehne (mikebon088 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This bridge is gone. Replacement is now open.

Posted October 23, 2014, by Donna Chien (chiendonna [at] gmail [dot] com)

The first photo is identified as:

The West Side

As seen from Riverside Park.

Photo taken by J.R. Manning in August 2008

---------------

Correction:

That would not be Riverside Park from which the photo was taken, but Riverside Street, which runs along the river through Monterey Park.

Posted October 23, 2014, by Stephen Cutting

I did a photo walk, October 2014, with some comments walking into and across bridge and down the south road a bit but not too far as there was lots of fresh bear scat and I was alone (possibly not a healthy situation). https://www.facebook.com/groups/107192132704024/706834572739...

Posted October 23, 2014, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Very interesting bridge. I don't know much about Wyoming aside from its striking lack of historic truss bridges. I would hope that this early rivet-connected truss bridge with the unusual multi-function three truss line design would be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and a preservation plan is in place for the bridge.

Posted October 23, 2014, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

M C,

Nothing miraculous, I just did a Google image search for Trinity River Railroad Bridge and found the bridge with a construction date listed here: http://www.fwweekly.com/2013/10/16/string-of-pearls/ its at the bottom.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Robert Thompson (rkt [dot] engineering [at] gmail [dot] com)

So.... we just got done with Bridge Day in WV, and I have some photos from the catwalk, and on rope videos during three 825 foot rappels. These may be a bit off-topic, so I'm wondering how the consensus feels about them being posted here?

R.K. Thompson

Posted October 22, 2014, by Robert Elder

I drove over this bridge early this morning. Put this one on your bucket list before it is gone. The approaches are just as awesome as the main span. The overflow bridge is a treat as well.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Robert Elder

This one has been painted white and looks great. This one should be around for a long time.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Robert Elder

Just crossed this one. Looks freshly rehabbed with a new green paint job.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Robert Elder

I drove over this bridge today. It is still open, but the new one is going up quickly. Visit ASAP if you want to see it.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Luke

To answer you question about why "The T" was omitted, because "The T" didn't come up when I had looked into the bridge.

TRE showed up in imagery, and DART as mentioned shows up in the "What's Here" algorithm.

Since it's as relevant as DART is to the bridge, a category for "The T" will be made.

As for the Frisco, I don't know, I think it was there when I added the Rock Island category.

Posted October 22, 2014, by M C Toyer (mctoyer [at] hotmail [dot] com)

To Nathan -

I appreciate the guidance. May I ask the source of the 1923 construction date you added?

Also, can anyone provide details on when the Frisco, (St Louis - San Francisco Railroad) operated this line?

Posted October 22, 2014, by M C Toyer (mctoyer [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Re "Posted by Anonymous - It is DART, NOT BNSF. Putting BNSF would confuse people searching for this bridge much worse."

----------------------

That was my point - I was being facetious therefore my "morass of confusion" comment.

Not to split hairs but it is more correctly TRE than DART as the current operator, and why has The T been omitted - they have the same standing as DART in this situation and the bridge is in Tarrant County, not Dallas.

Posted October 22, 2014, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

I guess fixing it was too much to hope for. Now doomed:

http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2014/1...

Posted October 22, 2014, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

I think people are trying to find consistency where it is either not possible or not reasonable. Many railroad bridges have common names used by the general public and they may refer to the original owner, the current owner, or something completely different, and I would suggest defaulting to the common name before falling back on a "current owner name" rule. Example: to call Chicago's "Chicago and Alton Railroad Bridge" the "CN - South Fork South Branch Chicago River Bridge" http://bridgehunter.com/il/cook/bh50841/ is a bit silly when nobody refers to the bridge by that name, and the official Chicago Landmark Designation and the HAER Documentation names the bridge the Chicago and Alton Railroad Bridge.

At the same time, it is problematic (when no common public name exists) if someone wants to name a bridge based on a historical owner... you need to know the exact construction date of the bridge, and what the name of the railroad was at the time, unless you want to pick the name based on when the railroad line was laid which could predate the bridge itself which is even more confusing.

I am appreciative of those who list the railroad names in full, non-abbreviated format in the categories list. I am a bridge historian, not a railroad historian, and don't always have the abbreviations listed in the "Alternate Names" section memorized, or I at least need a refresher to remember what they stand for. I would imagine the same could be said for the general public, who I think its easy to forget are also frequent visitors to this website.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Zachary S

Replaced c. 2009.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Justin

I'm pretty sure EVERY railroad bridge on this website that is currently in use is listed as the current user of the line, with historical info put either in the description area, or typed up in an essay and added to the page.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Anonymous

There's also an "additional names" box which the other railroads can go into. Click "whats here" under the map to see what the PRIMARY railroad is. It is DART, NOT BNSF. Putting BNSF would confuse people searching for this bridge much worse.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Zachary S

There appears to be an old swing bridge still extant at this location, locked into the open position.

Posted October 22, 2014, by M C Toyer

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion and yours, on a website subtitled "Historic and Notable," is that thirteen recent years trumps three fourths of a century.

Using that logic I daresay the majority of active Texas railroad bridges should now be known as UP, BNSF, or KCS.

Regarding this particular route it should also be named BNSF because that railroad holds trackage right on the line. It all descends into a morass of confusion.

I believe that historical context is important. Without the Who, When, Why, What and Where these are just a collection of photographs.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Zachary S

According to aerial imagery, there's a pony truss bridge here as of late 2012.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

I am fairly sure this is the North Lund Bridge shown in the attached doc.

Attachment #1 (application/pdf; 275,820 bytes)

Posted October 22, 2014, by Brian Bartlett (worumbo [at] gmail [dot] com)

The HAER photos shown aren't of the 1960 Paradise Hill Road bridge, but of the carriage path's 1929 Duck Brook Bridge.

Posted October 22, 2014, by Justin

I think that the common name should be whoever is CURRENTLY using the bridge, Not the historical operator.

Posted October 22, 2014, by M C Toyer (mctoyer [at] hotmail [dot] com)

This railroad and bridge were constructed by the Chicago Rock Island and Gulf Railroad (CRI&G) in 1903 on the line connecting Fort Worth and Dallas Texas. The CRI&G was chartered specifically to operate in Texas and was later absorbed into its parent, the Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad (CRI&P).

The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) is a joint service of Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) with both entities co-owning the trackage and right of way.

The bridge crosses the West Fork of the Trinity which merges with the Elm Fork further downstream in Dallas to form the Trinity River.

My recommendation is to the change the common name of this bridge to "Rock Island RR / West Fork Bridge" with "TRE / West Fork Bridge" as an alternate. These names would be historically and geographically correct.

Posted October 22, 2014, by M C Toyer (mctoyer [at] hotmail [dot] com)

This railroad and bridge were constructed by the Chicago Rock Island and Gulf Railroad (CRI&G) in 1903 on the line connecting Fort Worth and Dallas Texas. The CRI&G was chartered specifically to operate in Texas and was later absorbed into its parent, the Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad (CRI&P).

The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) is a joint service of Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) with both entities co-owning the trackage and right of way. Since DART and TRE have separate routes and equipment it would be more correct to label this bridge as TRE rather than DART.

The bridge crosses Elm Fork which merges with the West Fork further downstream to form the Trinity River. Elm Fork was diverted upstream in 1930 for flood control but this channel continues to serves as a primary conduit for storm water drainage.

My recommendation is to the change the common name of this bridge to "Rock Island RR / Elm Fork Bridge" with "TRE / Old Elm Fork Bridge" as an alternate. These names would be historically and geographically correct.

Posted October 21, 2014, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

They held the opening ceremony last friday. I had hoped to attend but work and health kept me away:

http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2014/1...

Posted October 21, 2014, by Zachary S

Replaced by early 2012 by a generic ugly modern concrete span, as the road was four-laned.

Posted October 21, 2014, by Dave King (DKinghawkfan [at] hotmail [dot] com)

This photo is not of a pedestrian bridge. This is the road arch bridge that is posted http://bridgehunter.com/ia/delaware/699020/ I can tell from the bridge itself but also the scraggly tree on the opposite side. I am unsure if there is any arch bridge on the trails.

Posted October 21, 2014, by Kevin Skow (weatherbum [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The south approach sustained significant damage from flooding this summer/fall and is one good flood away from being washed out. The bottom lateral bracing also sustained damage in the floods and a number of pieces are dangling from the bridge or lying in the river. I was surprised how much the bridge shook given the relatively light winds on my visit. I would also say that this bridge was rehabilitated at some point given the newer concrete pier on the north approach.

RE: re: Quality vs. Quantity
Posted October 21, 2014, by Mike Goff (michael [dot] goff [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Just keep doing what you are doing, if you enjoy it and feel it is enhancing to the site's experience.

Happy trails!

re: Quality vs. Quantity
Posted October 21, 2014, by Anonymous

yea did 9200 photos on my trip through sadly just didn't have time to stop at all the bridges. again just trying to put up pics that aren't on the pages. And embarrassed to say I like the way the bridges look on the car shots. (slightly elongated and a little blurry on the sides) <---there I said it. But certainly I can and will be a bit more selective. Having fun on the site thank you all that have helped me.

Royce

Posted October 21, 2014, by Zachary S

Don't see many overpasses like this built these days.

Posted October 21, 2014, by Zachary S

Looks like it might have been replaced...

Posted October 21, 2014, by James Holzmeier (wabashry [at] gmail [dot] com)

The Wabash Railroad Bridges & Buildings book for the Western Division, dated 1902, lists the bridge being constructed in 1890, not 1880. With that being said, however, Bridge #2891, as this bridge was officially known on the Wabash, was listed as having only ONE span of 126' length! The bridge is listed as being a Howe Truss bridge. Off to the side, in the Remarks section, is listed the date 1905, with no other remarks other than that. Well, obviously we know there is more than one span to this bridge, so does the "1905" notation mean that the railroad built a new bridge (the current one) in that year? Another RR document I have lists Bridge #2891 as having two 153' and one 150' Thru Truss spans. That document is from 1964. James Holzmeier, Wabash Railroad Historical Society

Posted October 21, 2014, by Cody (cj35021 [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Noticed this bridge while passing through and stopped to snap a few photos in October 2014. Looks exactly like the photos with very easy access. Very nice all around. I'm so glad I came across this site - I took the photos but couldn't remember where I was a few days later!

Posted October 21, 2014, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Whoever shot these photos was speeding, according to the sign!

Based on the photos at Bridgehunter you might not realize this, but you can walk on this bridge, and if you have an appreciation for the details of a historic bridge it is well worth it. There is a small parking lot on the Washington end of the bridge. Park there and walk. I did a complete walkthrough photo-documentation of this bridge which will eventually be added to HistoricBridges.org.

Posted October 21, 2014, by Mike Goff (michael [dot] goff [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Glad to see someone has finally devoted the time to getting good shots of this giant truss. Nice photo documentation!

Good work Royce!

RE: Quality vs. Quantity
Posted October 21, 2014, by Mike Goff (michael [dot] goff [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Royce,

You do not have to stop, that was just a suggestion as to my interpretation of the other comment.

The only constructive criticism I can offer is when I “shotgun” bridges like we are talking about, I try to pick out the best shots with minimal amounts of cars or blurring to post and save the rest in my own files.

I checked it out yesterday just for fun after I replied to the original post. I have taken over 18,000 bridge photos in the Pacific Northwest and have only posted per the leaderboard 8,162 photos including HAER photos (which seems obsessive to me). That means I have deemed more than half of them as unworthy of posting.

I did this small amount of research because I thought the post was directed at me since I posted quite of bit of material yesterday, but then I looked at the other updates and thought it might be at you as well.

Keep up the work and carry on bridge hunting friend!

Mike

Posted October 21, 2014, by Chris Goodwin (txzebrfan [at] mail [dot] com)

I have some pictures of the Rigolets Bridge on my trip back home from Nov 2004. I spent a lot of time on that island. My grandfather was the Baptist preacher on the island at Fort Pike Baptist Chapel.

Both pictures were taken at Fort Pike standing watching the old bridge open and close.

RE Quality vs. Quantity
Posted October 20, 2014, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Sorry Mike I will quit posting those car walk throughs. just trying to post what I got and a lot off times all the other views are posted over and over and over.

Royce

Posted October 20, 2014, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)
RE: Quality vs. Quantity?
Posted October 20, 2014, by Mike Goff (michael [dot] goff [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The one place I may be able to understand this comment is in the case where we are essentaily doing the same thing as Google Street View with mass quanities of photos walking our way through a bridge from a car. Sometimes that is the only way to get some shots, but other than that???

RE: Quality vs. Quantity?
Posted October 20, 2014, by Justin

I don't know what you've been seeing, but if you think anything added recently has been "poor quality", then boy are you in for a surprise.

Quality vs. Quantity?
Posted October 20, 2014, by BH Police (bridgehunter [at] helpus [dot] com)

Just a thought!

Posted October 20, 2014, by Karen (jwperson [at] aol [dot] com)

This bridge is slated to be converted to a pedestrian bridge in 2015. A new vehicular bridge to be built parallel to it.

Bridgehunter's Chronicles 2015 calendars for sale via Café Press
Posted October 20, 2014, by Jason Smith (JDSmith77 [at] gmx [dot] net)

Some great news: The Bridgehunter's Chronicles 2015 calendars and other merchandise are selling like hotcakes! :-D We even had one who ordered as many as a dozen calendars of Minnesota's historic bridges. If you are interested in purchasing a 2015 calendar through the Chronicles or sister column Flensburg Files, click here for more details: http://www.cafepress.com/flensburgbridgehunteronlineshop

Posted October 20, 2014, by Anonymous

Keel Road was at one time, Highway 71, which began the start of the Sparta-Norwalk Hill. The road was straightened sometime back in the mid-to-late 1990's and what was the Highway became Keel Road. If you look closely as you travel East on Highway 71, you can see where the old road used to go. Also the gravel road by the overpass used to lead to the Railroad Tunnel and was used by the Tunnel Watchers and other railroad personnel.

Posted October 19, 2014, by Ed Hollowell (erhollowell [at] aol [dot] com)

Look in "related listings" at the bottom of the entry and you will see the bridge in this article.

Marquam Bridge
Posted October 19, 2014, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Thank you Mike Goff and Zachary S for your responses. I appreciate your help

Royce

Posted October 19, 2014, by Janis Ford (jford3 [at] columbus [dot] rr [dot] com)

TR 894 is Church Hill Rd. Pretty sure this is the original location of the Church Hill CB relocated in 1982.

Posted October 19, 2014, by Jason Edwards (Kx_500_2000 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

My mother found this postcard at her house in Vista of this bridge.

Her mother (my grandmother) lived in Oceanside.

There is no date on the postcard.

Also a modern photo taken from same spot.

This bridge is NOT interstate 5 bridge but is just next to it.

Posted October 19, 2014, by liz (lizcooper79 [at] gmail [dot] com)

We used this bridge for photograph backgrounds last spring.

Posted October 19, 2014, by James Holzmeier (wabashry [at] gmail [dot] com)

Originally this line was the Missouri-Kansas-Texas branch line to Hannibal, later purchased outright by the Wabash Railroad.

Posted October 18, 2014, by Anonymous

Douglas has drawn a Warren truss whereas, to me, it looks like a Post truss.

Posted October 18, 2014, by Zachary S

Looks to have been replaced, based on aerial images.

Posted October 18, 2014, by Tom Hoffman (tehoffm [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Work has began to bypass this bridge. It wasn't that big a surprise. Scipio probably has at least 100 or more residents. So the road this covered bridge is on is probably an artery where there is considerable traffic. I remember first seeing the Scipio bridge in 1989 after the rehab in excellent condition with an 11 ton limit. That hasn't lasted and traffic become heavy. What matters is that after the bypass the covered bridge is well maintained and not forgotten.

Posted October 18, 2014, by Anonymous

Douglas' ' drawing is just a mirrored version of the HAER photograph.

Posted October 18, 2014, by M C Toyer (mctoyer [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I'll post the exact coordinates after I've physically verified and photographed the location.

Unlike some I don't just surf the internet and post unconfirmed and/or inaccurate listings.

The information on this and other similar websites will likely still be around long after the bridges and I have turned to dust, so I'm inclined to guide future researchers from compounding the mistakes of the past.

Posted October 18, 2014, by Anonymous

Looked again, truss pattern still doesn't match.

Posted October 17, 2014, by Jared Mason (budnik03 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I lived in the house adjacent to it until 1996. Its really cool to see it after all these years. Used to play there all the time. We made a path underneath by throwing large stones in the creek. Would spend hours fishing near there too.

RE: I-5 Marquam Bridge
Posted October 17, 2014, by Zachary S

I think NBI data is more or less standardized to just a few categories, and bridges like this that stretch their basic categories can't be fully accounted for on their documentation system. I would be more inclined to classify it as a deck truss than a through truss if forced, though again it is often hard to come up with an exact category for less standard structures. Very neat bridge, anyhow. It reminds me of how it once wasn't unheard of for large deck truss bridges to be built with a railroad running above and a road running through, or vice versa.

I would also like to point out that NBI data is frequently quite wrong on the type of truss in smaller, less well known truss bridges (this would obviously not include this one). I can't count how many through or pony trusses, for example, were listed as 'TRUSS - DECK' in NBI data. At least they got the 'truss' part right...

Posted October 17, 2014, by Janis Ford (jford3 [at] columbus [dot] rr [dot] com)

Looks like the bridge is at the corner of Gladstone & Park in Youngstown. A block NE of Wilson Ave/289

Posted October 17, 2014, by joe (joecon5150 [at] gmail [dot] com)

this bridge was demolished this summer 2014 I live in Morgantown..it will be replaced with a new structure

Posted October 17, 2014, by Colin Campbell (iworkout [at] frontiernet [dot] net)

My uncle Carl Campbell had this bridge moved from the Shavertown, NY area, he probably bought it from the local contractor clearing the land for the Pepaction Reservoir. It was stored for awhile in Rockland, NY. He then had it moved to its present location where he owned a considerable amount of the land along the main road.

Posted October 17, 2014, by Anonymous

Look again...

Posted October 17, 2014, by Anonymous

Douglas' drawing does not match the picture.

Posted October 17, 2014, by Zachary S

Unfortunately looks to have been replaced.


< Previous Page 69 of 333 Next >