Post a comment Contact webmaster
Kinda what I have thought about this unusual span Robert.
I have never been convinced that it functions as a cantilever truss. I'm more inclined to think that the "Inversion" of the upper chord was more of an attempt to save materials and also help channel the live load and stress reversal into the substructure system. I read an old engineering report one time suggesting that load transferal across a bridge relied on the true abutments to actually "Ground" those forces into a larger base (the surrounding earth embankments if you will), and that the intermediate piers of a multi-span structure would only help to control or lessen it. Sounds somewhat plausible until we look at large multi-span structures built upon Caissons or Lally-columns, then it seems questionable.
Of course 110 years have passed since this beauty was constructed and without documentation it is hard to discern exactly just what the designer was going for... And for the record I still like the term "Inverted Parker"! :-)
Nathan just has a quicker trigger finger than you Matt!! ;-)
Matt... Great minds think alike... And apparently at the same time as well! As an afterthought I also wonder if this bridge's fate was part of a management plan, I think the state made those for some bridges although I haven't looked at this for a while.
Jinx!! Looks like we posted very similar comments at the same time :>)
It looks like they put new permanent concrete posts in to keep heavy traffic off, so I would say that they plan to keep it around for pedestrians and bicycles; maybe a trail will eventually be placed across.
This bridge is gone. A new single-span PS concrete bridge is under construction in its place.
It looks like the contractor is no longer on-site, and it also looks like new bollards were installed at the ends of the bridge. That being the case, I would guess the bridge has been "monumented" meaning it has been bypassed and abandoned with no restoration work undertaken.
This bridge is still standing but no longer carries traffic. A new bridge is in place on a new parallel alignment. At this point I don't know if the old bridge will be demolished or kept in place for a trail.
So...let us assume for a minute that the towers are strictly cosmetic, or alternatively they exist strictly for the purpose of holding a light standard...
Now, let us assume that the the "Reverse Parker" span distributes the dead weight of loads towards the ends of the span. This weight could then be absorbed by the endposts and pylons. I believe that this is what Dr. Adams was implying by taking everything that we know about the Parker truss and flipping it around.
Given these two assumptions, would the diagonals that run from the top chord of the Reverse Parker to the top of the tower simply act as a way of stabilizing the tower? (ie, the light standard) This would require that the unloaded Reverse Parker distribute a small fraction of its own weight to the towers. Likewise, the diagonals that run from the top chord of the approach spans to the top of the tower would have to function in much the same way. The question then becomes, how would the diagonals function under load? Would the trusses just distribute the extra weight to the pylons, or would the added load push the tower onto the neighboring span?
Of course, this system would be a very expensive and convoluted way of fitting your bridge with light standards. Thus, perhaps the diagonals that run from the top of the towers simply act as stiffening members - ie. somewhat like a stiffening truss in a suspension bridge.
The placement of structural pins might be a clue. Are the diagonal members connected to the top chords and towers with pins, or are they just riveted onto the top chords and towers. Nathan has just added this bridge to his bridge browser, so you can see his photos here:
I am going through his photos to get a better look at these diagonal members.
So, did the Kansas City Bridge Co. come up with a convoluted way of holding up a light standard, or did they simply install a stiffening system to the bridge? This question of course is predicated on the three sections of the bridge not acting as a cantilever.
I'm starting to think that the towers do not contribute at all to the structural functionality of the bridge at all--they may be simply to make the bridge look like a suspension bridge (or a cantilever), and the spans themselves function as three independent, simply-supported spans (much like the Broadway Bridge in St Peter, MN: http://bridgehunter.com/mn/le-sueur/4930/). I think this for a couple of reasons:
1. The members connecting the towers to the rest of the top chords are significantly smaller than the other chords. They are obviously not designed to handle the forces of the much larger chords, and it stands to reason that if they were chords they would be subjected to similar forces. It's almost as if they were placed to soften the appearance of what would look like a very strange bridge if they were not there.
2. The diagonals connecting the small members to the lower chords are the same size as the upper chords, suggesting that they act as the end posts for each span. Picture the bridge without the small members and without the towers, and you have three through trusses, the middle being a Parker with the inverted curved upper chord, as Robert mentioned, and the end trusses being some combination of Parker/Warren/Frankenstein configuration.
This is all speculation and I could be completely out in left field, but it seems to somewhat make sense to me. Feel free to chime in, whether in agreement or rebuttal; I'm definitely curious about this bridge's history.
Well, gee...I was expecting that Nathan would be able to provide a definitive answer within 5 minutes of arriving on scene. Apparently this bridge has done the unthinkable - it has stumped the expert.
I all seriousness, I think we are probably going to have to go old school on this one and look at some company records. The Kansas City Library, KSHS Archives, County records, etc. are all possible places to start.
That being said, I have thoroughly enjoyed all of the engineering discussions on here...
I am attempting to renew discussion of this long-running argument/discussion on the design of the bridge following my field visit to this bridge earlier this year. Thus far, the debate has mostly been whether this was a cantilever truss or not... and agreement was largely reached that this is not a cantilever truss. However, the discussion seems to have assumed that if this is not a cantilever then this trusses spans function as simple trusses. However, does anyone think this might be a continuous truss without cantilever function? Here are larger/newer examples of continuous truss bridges that are shaped like cantilever trusses, but are NOT (post-construction) functioning as cantilever trusses, and instead only function as continuous trusses:
“Convict labor built the first reinforced concrete bridges in Montana in 1912. Only one bridge, however, was a concrete slab. The Warm Springs Creek Bridge at the Montana State Hospital in Deer Lodge County is a simple one span bridge. The bridge is 19 feet wide and 27 feet long: it has concrete wing walls and a wood sidewalk”.
“The use of convict labor for road and bridge construction was an important facet in the early attempts by the Montana counties to improve their transportation system. Montana State Penitentiary warden Frank Conley believed the experience gained by convict road builders would be useful to them once released from prison”.
“Between 1913 and 1917 the convict road gangs contributed significantly to the state’s transportation system”.
"Monuments Above The Water - Historic Bridges Of Montana" by Jon Axline. Pages 71 & 72.
Another 4 slope Parker!
Neat old bridge. I shot this photo from the deck about two weeks ago.
Not a comment on bridge, but looks like Mark Never came back.....................
I agree with Robert's comment as well.
And you can't convince me that any money was saved after the historic bridge was torn out and replaced, and then the MOB was purchased and erected. They could have simply built a new road bridge on an altered alignment and then kept the truss in place for the trail!
I neglected to mention in my earlier comments that the name Carnegie was being rolled into steel and iron coming out of mills bought by Carnegie years before the official formation of the company. I'm standing in front of an 1885 truss bridge right now with Carnegie on all its original channels.
Ironically, a MOB was used for the hiking trail, when a truss was available just a few feet away. This scene really epitomizes what many of us hope to prevent. I am glad to see these photos on here because they make a great visual aid.
Please keep adding photos of bridges in your area.
Wow, a plain stringer bridge with ugly Armco railings, and a Wal-mart MOB pedestrian bridge right next to it--how utterly scenic!
I also agree with what Robert has stated here, and do apologize for whatever has happened in the past Chet. Anytime you have a wide-open forum like this one there will be an occasional "Anonymous fly in the ointment" if you will. I like to think that overall we have a good core of folks here that do try to help make this site better... And help one another as well!
The bridge listed here has been replaced with a new bridge - Date unknown. Photos are of new bridge.
It's an old railroad line 1960 imagery shows only supports standing.
I really mean it when I call the assembled heroes! Anyone have any old views of this bridge? TRULY Appreciated!
Well. Thank you for all the positive comments. I did not intend to air old grievances, but to attempt to explain why I do not post on BH anymore. You are right, though; the website has gone through growing pains and has improved in many ways. I know there are others who stopped contributing as well, irritated and frustrated by a small minority. Frankly, I am surprised and pleased that my participation was noted and missed. Perhaps I need to re-think my decision. Again, thank you, Robert and Michael, for your encouragement.
Scheduled to be replaced in another 5 years.
This bridge was just closed and refurbished again in August 2016. Members were replaced and straightened as necessary. Due to repeated impacts the cross frames were rebuilt and raised to provide over 17' of vertical clearance. A new bridge is being designed and it is to be completely replaced in another five years.
I thoroughly second Roberts statement and request (In no small part because I couldn't do it myself so eloquently). Having joined this community just over 3 years ago now, I remember having a tough time with it for a while. Getting immediately corrected because you didn't know the difference between a Baltimore and Pennsylvania truss, or adding a bridge and having it immediately edited before completing it was incredibly frustrating.
But I agree that things have gotten better here, as the environment has certainly relaxed. For me it was a good time to come on-board here, as it gave me a strong view of what editorial high-mindedness can do and has contributed to my approach for my work here. I try not to judge though as I feel like we are all after the same thing; to build a complete, comprehensive, and accurate bridge site. Its the method by which we achieve this goal that matters though.
It's definitely a double edged sword with the system here where everyone can have editorial power with no strict guidelines on how things are to be set up. It allows us to grow and develop the community organically, and figure out what works. Of course with this (as with any online community) you can have Trolls and Zealots, who get an outsized power with the editorial control. It has its cons, but I'll take that any day versus a system with moderators and strict guidelines.
What I can say for absolute sure though is that we are poorer here on BH without your contributions and wonderful photos spanning several decades. Needless to say I miss the documentation you've done (especially with the Lenticulars, I sometimes hop over to LH just to look), and would love to see you back on this side.
Trying to find photos of an old single lane plate girder bridge that was about and 1/8 to 1/4 mile above this one. It went over the clinchfield railroad at boundry drive. It was replaced in the mid 70's by a steel concrete two lane bridge.
Thanks Matt for posting this bridge.Being from southeastern Pa i am familiar with lakes when being built oftentimes structures will be submerged.I wouldn't doubt some of the man made lakes here in Pa have bridges underwater besides houses,trees and other interesting finds.
I think that the pin is in the right place now.
There are two bridges at this location, one is stone and the other is concrete.
The NBI considers this bridge to be a tee beam. It might be a concrete girder instead. One needs to look underneath to know for sure.
Stick to your guns, Mr. Gehman. Your work is too priceless for you to be subjected to the manipulation by the pains that another writer referred to. Some of them appear to still be very much active. The Landmark site hasn't been infested by them yet.
It's wonderful to have such historic structures here in my native hometown. I'm very glad that Sacramento has been able to find in their heart to preserve great bridges such as this one.
There is a photo in a Palo Verde Valley Times 1961 newspaper featuring the dismantling of the bridge. The main reason was to make room for the widening of the bridge (or a span as it says) in the future. Also in the caption, the local Chamber of Commerce asked the highway department to save the bridge for "foot or equine travel", but that got denied unfortunately.
Yes, rivets as opposed to bolts or welded connections. Good call.
I added the builder based on the KSHS link.
Another question to ask (in the affirmative means it is of interest)... does it have RIVETS? In the case of this one, the answer is YES!!!
tl;dr: This website has experienced some growing pains over the years, but it has come out stronger. I hope that our former contributors will return.
I hope that you will return to posting. I won't rehash old history, but there were a few flame wars on this website a few years ago. I have to confess that I finally exploded after constant provocation by the the Half Star Bandit. I took the bait when I shouldn't have.
In retrospect, the website was going through some growing pains at the time. Topics such as railroad names, inclusion of MOBs, mid-20th Century concrete slabs, nice looking modern bridges, non-descript old bridges, etc, all had to be discussed. Over time, I think that we were finally able to work out solutions that improved the website.
Many of us Bridgehunters are very passionate about "our" bridges. We have all driven way out of our way down many a dirt road, sometimes nearly getting stuck, only to find that the 1880s pony truss we wanted to document has been replaced by a shiny concrete slab. Many of us have driven out of our way only to find an empty gap over the river. We have seen people cheer when our favorite cantilever was blown to smithereens. We have seen some older trusses neglected only to become fish habitat when they finally collapsed. Such frustration can easily manifest itself in the forum.
Yet, at the same time, we also realize that state historical societies, DOTs, engineers, and children visit this website. This, we can really do society, and historic bridges, a favor by encouraging quality discussions. It is going to take all of us to change perceptions in this country regarding the value of historic bridges.
My home state of Kansas has neither covered bridges, nor monumental suspension bridges. Thus, we lack the two types of bridges that Americans seem to care about. Yet, Kansas has some Bowstrings, wrought iron Pratt trusses,a variety of other truss types, Marsh arches, stone arches, and other designs that have great historic value. I learned to study and appreciate these overlooked bridges at a young age. It is my hope that these types of bridges nationwide will receive the preservation priority that they deserve. But, we must start by informing the public of their value. We all have a role to fill.
Once in a Life time find Chet! Thank you !
On the subject of the Fort Ritner Bridge, the new book "Reflections: A Bicentennial History of Washington County" features a photo of the bridge on the cover. The reason I mention this is that I produced the county map for the book's inside front cover, and the editor just sent me a copy. Very nice.
I used to post to BridgeHunter, but deleted all my photos because I felt I was badly treated by some members. I will make an exception in this case, but I generally only post on LandmarkHunter now.
Did you visit Guthrie Creek Bridge nearby? it is, supposedly, on the chopping block
I wasn't sure if Chester has an account, so I took the liberty of adding. This is a great find! We may have to get James (or someone who knows how) to move his photo to the page, if Chester would allow.
Good catch - I will change the name.
I would definitely have added this one. I generally consider a few questions when adding a bridge like this:
1. Is it pre 1970ish?
2. Did it require a significant amount of engineering?
3. Is it a MOB? (okay, every truss bridge is technically a MOB)
Essentially if I can say yes to either the first or second question, I will generally add it. On the other hand, question 3 applies to those modern prefabricated bridges that all pretty much look the same. MOBs tend to generate lots of anger because in the eyes of many of us Bridgehunters, they represent a lost opportunity to reuse an otherwise doomed historic truss.
This bridge appears to meet both 1 and 2, while escaping the condemnation of 3.
George, Chester hasn't added it to Bridgehunter.
According to a 60s topo from historicaerials, it was a MoPac line.
I will let the railfans fill in the railroad information if they are interested.
This appears to be a long-abandoned timber stringer. The Whitewater just might take it out someday.
Dana, no need to apologize, as there are already a lot of footbridges on the site.
The only footbridges people really get annoyed by are the modern boxxy ones and the modern pseudo-bowstring ones.
This bridge is is old (http://hornellhome.com/Around%20Hornell%20in%20Photos%20-%20...), and looks quite nice, IMHO.
Apologies for posting a foot bridge! As a Modern Metal foot bridge this is as good as it gets in our area.
What is the street now was the Big Four Railroad (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis) line from Louisville KY to Benton Harbor MI.
Is this bridge on Bridgehunters?
Went to the bridge yesterday, Sept. 18, 2016 and it's still closed and the deck boards are really sagging. There are piles of rocks at both approaches and rails welded across. Not looking good...
Much thanks Don.
I never gave light rail a thought. It appears that a branch line did run off of the Connellsville / Uniontown loop from Leisenring #1 to Dawson. And, the piers would make perfect sense. However, the piers are massive, and seem like a huge overbuild for a light rail crossing. Additionally, the lines time table seems to end in Dickerson Run, across the river from Dawson. Also, I can find no mention of trolley service to Dawson in any historical info I have been able to gather. Perhaps, the next time I'm up this way, I'll visit Dawson and ask the locals.
The attribution in the historic photo is incorrect. This is the Illinois & Michigan Canal.
There was a proposed electric rail line from Dawson to a small town called Juniata, southwest of Connellsville.
Maps of the West Penn System Railways show a line that ended at Dawson and had to cross the river about where the piers are.
The bridge that was at 36.389667, -93.659259 looks in Google Earth 2001 imagery to be a multi span through truss. Gone in 2006 imagery.
So no, it's not the swinging bridge, but it may have replaced the swinging bridge.
Many Thanks to Bridgehunter hero Dave King for posting BH 72993 Canacadea Creek Bridge, Visited today. Its closed to one lane and in sad state. VERY busy bridge, believe the 1047 a day. Think its so cool someone from several states away found a bridge in what should be my back yard!
This is an interesting little Pratt pony truss. Every full panel is double - countered. (Is double - countered an appropriate term)?
I was biking the Great Allegheny Passage between Connellsville, PA and Dickerson Run, PA, yesterday. Approximently 1 mile east, or up river, from Dickerson Run, I discovered a trail leading off to the river. I found a rather large stone bridge abutment and piers crossing the Yough. I can see the piers from Sat. Imagery, but when crossing over to old topo's, the bridge doesn't show. There is no existing superstructure, just piers. It's almost within view of the Dawson bridge. I have scanned the P&LE and B&O records and even went back to the Pittsburgh,McKeesport and Youghiogheny Railroad, and have found nothing. I seems that it is definitely railroad related since there are no towns or roads that could have contributed to its existence. Any info greatly appreciated.
LAT: 40 degrees, 2 minutes, 16.3 seconds North
LON: 79 degrees, 38 minutes, 38.2 seconds West
I found what appears to an abandoned bridge remnant just west of Berryville on old CR 306. Could this be the old swinging bridge?
I will drink to that. In all seriousness, a conference call may be a great idea.
Permitting might not be too bad, with a plan to mitigate disaster. Permission is next. How about a conference call with the owner next? We will be in Arkansas in October, fingers crossed, and maybe we can achieve something with our fundraising efforts here in Michigan. If a beer can save this bridge for the next step, well it should. W'B American Brown Ale.
Yes, and it is the permits that concern me the most. I am under no delusions about the legal complexity of propping up a bridge. Permissions and permits are the next stage...
KSHS has desire and no funds. We shored Martin with a steel post and concrete Robert, you can show her that potential fix from photos.
No one will step up if we dont. Hopeful that we can try. I'll send you those photos to send to her. It's not an expensive fix but you can't just go out there yourself, and it requires permission and funding and a contractor.
The aerial view clearly shows the curved track on the west end.
This has been gone since 2012-13. Drove over it in May '12, and the replacement bridge was well under way.
yes the name is on the bridge and the year it was built
I am looking for information about the Belle Chasse Train Tressle where trains cross over. I am looking for when it was built and the parts used in the updating of it.
I would say keep posting. This helps us all to generate some ideas. I figure that we all want to save the bridge.
My only point regarding SHPO and other governmental organizations is that people within those organizations may help in guiding you in your communications with KDHE in order to avoid possible missteps and put you in touch with someone within KDHE that has experience and a reasonable perspective on this type of work.
Actually, come to think of it, someone at the county's bridge dept. may be helpful in guiding you through the KDHE paperwork.
PS. If you are concerned with my posts on this topic being posted in a public forum, just let me know and I'll stop.
Good thoughts all around. The SHPO is aware of the bridge, as are county officials.
Glad you're on it Robert.
You are working on the right things. I hope you have the time and patience to pull it off!
Landowner permission is key (unfortunately). I don't see a way around it. Will she allow you to act toward the bridge's preservation if you don't challenge her ownership? Would you be willing to work on it if it remains private?
KDHE may be tricky. It is possible to get these folks to move quickly but it may require some navigation. See if someone in the state historic preservation office has dealt with any previous historic preservation efforts on the Whitewater River (it can be anything - for example a mill). They may be able to tell you who to reach out to at KDHE. Then, if you can find a loophole in the rules - like the form will not extend below the lowest course of stone (assuming the lowest course is intact, hard to tell in the photos) and the form will not impact the water quality or flow pattern they may be willing to sign off quickly. Additionally, push on the fact that if the bridge collapses, it will have a much greater negative impact than the proposed repair and necessitate removal which will also be more invasive to the water course.
I doubt you can get funding in time. You will likely need to do this with 'sweat equity' alone. Talk to local supply houses and concrete contractors, you may be able to build the form with stuff the supply house is willing to write off. A concrete contractor may occasionally have an extra couple of yards from a job on a truck - if you can be flexible with your timing and work around the contractor's schedule, and if there is access, have him dump the excess in your form.
None of these suggestions will generate a 'nice job' nor meet any engineering standards. However, they just may give you the time you need to do it right.
Based on my experience with Maple Rapids Road and the rigging of Carlton (via Nels), the three legged bridge isn't really an option, the 'or worse' is.
I read this morning in the Reading Eagle that first off Berks County is considering a $5 annual registration fee to finance repairs to county owned bridges.As of today Berks County's plans are to repair 59 county-owned bridges. Whether this is passed remains to be seen.As for Montgomery County $5 will be applied in 2017 to vehicle registrations for structurally deficient bridges.This will raise an additional $3.25 million for road improvements which i think also includes bridges.The county deemed 62 bridges deficient in 2012.Of those,7 have had repairs completed,and an additional 26 are in a design phase or construction.By adding the $5 fee,the county would be able to triple the amount of bridge projects slated for 2017 from 4 to 12.It was also quoted in this article that in 2017 73% of the bridges declared structurally deficient in 2012 will be in design,construction or actually completed.As of today,Montgomery County became the 13th county to impose the $5 fee.
Read in the Reading Eagle this morning that the estimated cost for repairing this bridge is now $42.6 million which is $6.3 million more than originally estimated.The budget for this project has already been increased by about 50% over the original estimate.If this keeps up according to what i'm reading the final cost will be way higher.As mentioned previously work on this bridge will not begin until the Buttonwood Street Bridge reopens.
Thanks as always for your feedback. I have spoken to a few individuals who want to save the bridge. I strongly believe that building a form and pouring concrete is a great idea. I am looking at this as a potential short term solution. At this point, we need three things to happen.
1. Landowner permission.
2. Any KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment) permits that would be needed.
3. Funding or donations of material.
I have talked with the landowner about 1 and 3. She and I discussed the implications of a NRHP listing in regards to funding. I have also explained that nobody wins if the bridge collapses.
With another flood, we could be dealing with a three - legged bridge...or worse...
If you are willing to be directly involved, try to convince the landowner to allow a stabilization effort to be done. Build and strap on a form around the base of the pier and pour concrete around it. It will look terrible, be a pain to remove and may not be a good long term solution but it should buy the bridge time.
Considering no one besides you seems to be stepping up to restore the bridge while its standing, if it falls in, its a death sentence, even if there is only minor damage.
With stabilization, I believe time is the bridge's friend as the preservation movement seems to be gaining steam.
I'm going to take a few more pictures to see if that helps. The Carnegie stamp is very faded but it should show up in a photo. Thanks for all of the input from everyone!
Unless someone shores it up very soon it will be gone. As they say, a stitch in time saves nine. This reminds me of the Maple Rapids Road Bridge. We were a few weeks too late...
I just added new photos showing the aftermath of yet another flood on the Whitewater River. The pylon continues to crumble.
I'll look more into the date for this bridge. It's likely in an annual report somewhere. The bridge in wisconsin is possibly an accurate date, although I will ask the owner where that date came from.
John... while certainly there is the potential for a bridge of this design to date to 1883 from a technological standpoint (in my earlier comments I overlooked the 1880 Redstone Bridge as an earlier all-riveted truss), my point is that's still a pretty significantly early date, and quite an outlier... even as you state this bridge design was built over a period of years... of which I would suspect 1883 is at the early end of the spectrum. Also, I am not clear what the source cited for the 1883 date of the Lammscapes bridge is. I wouldn't trust the signs that private owner put out unless there is further evidence than I am unaware of... which by the way would be fairly noteworthy.
In any case, I would caution against adding a speculative date to BridgeHunter (without adding underlying detail in the description) since as is clear here some visitors may interpret as "confirmed construction date" what should be at best a "circa" date and at worst an "estimate."
This identical structure:
was built by the same railroad in 1883. This design was very common along this railroad between the early 1880s and 1900. The difference is, this is one of the few structures that did not end up getting retrofitted with new floor beams and ending up in road use. While the date may be an error, I do not believe that this type of structure was exclusively built later in the 19th century.
I was looking through the condition reports of the several arch bridges on SW Fwy. that are only 10 -12 years old and seem perfect yet their conditions are not rated highly. I'm no experts but I wonder why they wouldn't achieve higher scores. They have light traffic.
This bridge also looks like it was replaced.
This bridge looks pretty new. Maybe a replacement bridge?
If this bridge were built in 1883 it would be tied with the Rocks Village Bridge for oldest known surviving bridge using riveted connections. I think this date highly unlikely on that fact alone. Pony truss railroad bridges are rare, and many lack a confirmed build date. However, based on bridges I have dates for, (and my own experience in general) the bridge likely dates from ca. 1888 to ca. 1896. I cite these bridges as representative technology (note the Milford Bridge was originally on a railroad)
Photos of the Carnegie brand on the bridge and information on which member(s) the name has been found would be immensely helpful (Carnegie varied their font over the years, and can help to some extent with dating). Do any other mill names appear on the bridge?
Zander, It's possible that there was an earlier bridge on site here as the stone abuts do suggest a pre-1900 span. I do think the bridge is at least 1890's but am not up to speed on steel mill history to comment further. Nathan Holth could probably tell you with more certainty. Either way it is definitely a very cool span!
Oh, and "God Bless Mooseheart"!
The date was assumed based on the type of bridge, as well as the original date of construction at this location. I am curious. Is it a single member, or several that are stamped with this? What are the members? To me, the bridge certainly looks like an early to mid 1880s railroad structure.
Perhaps you could shed some light on the bridge? Do you have any information on it?
This site claims erection of this bridge in the year 1883. The bridge is stamped with "Carnegie Steel" which was founded in 1892. I work for the municipality that owns this structure and I am curious of the facts surrounding it. Clearly there's some different information here. I'm contacting the Batavia Historical Society to see if they have any other info. Either way it's a great piece of history in my home town!
Being the bridge is fairly new, it was likely designed and built to exceed new Colorado standards, which I believe are 40 tons for single-axle vehicles and 42.5 tons for multi-axle.
Its just pathetic and sad that this bridge is not being left standing next to its replacement. What on earth is it in the way of?! To say its in the middle of nowhere is an understatement. The United Kingdom routinely leaves historic bridges standing next to their replacements... and its a lot more crowded over there than rural Arizona!
Looks like it was an early example of a bridge built by Smith Bridge Company of Toledo, Ohio. I say it looks like an early example because it has a lightweight design, and the portal bracing lattice arrangement is slightly different from the typical form... although it is positioned below the top chord as in their later examples. The finials and plaque are shaped typically for the company.
A lengthy drought in Connecticut has exposed a bridge that has been underwater for about 60 years. The small village of Colebrook River was lost when the Goodwin Dam was built on the West Branch of the Farmington River. The bridge crossed the river in the village and was never removed. While the bridge has been partially exposed in the past at times of low water, this is the first time it is accessible from the shore. I will be posting more photos on Landmark Hunter soon.
It looks as if the rehab copied the previous topside appearance. See the second picture: