Listed as 4-44' Deck girders in a 1973 track chart, although this is very likely inaccurate. Current bridge shows a 1907 stamp and a 1903 plaque. Very likely more to the story on this one.
This one is curious. A 1897 date stamp, and the bridge appears to have been a ca. 1900 to ca. 1905 span. The old second track (http://bridgehunter.com/ia/polk/bh75590/) gave a date of 1901.
The replacement contractor gives further information:
"The bridge was originally built in 1902, piers rebuilt in 1943. "
Except, it appears the piers were part of the 1897/1901 bridge. The 1902 date does seem appropriate for the truss. There are two other bridges on this line that also appear to have been moved in the mid-1940s:
The Rock Island did a lot of realignments in southeast Iowa during the mid 1940s, and at least 3 spans like this are have known to existed down there. It is possible that these spans could have all been moved from out east as the railroad upgraded lines.
Article suggests a 1902 build year for the bridge.
Paul Rottinghaus has purchased the Sherman's Nursery property and plans to upgrade the warehouse building and fix up the bridges.
I think it's time to add the new I-74 tied-arch bridge on bridgehunter since the westbound span is now finished and open to traffic.
Love the name
This bridge is also locally known as Snell's bridge as the old stone house to the east of it was built by the Snell family in the late 1860's-early 1870's. The attached pictures were taken 11/1/2020 and 11/4/2020.
It's always money and risk as far as I've been able to ascertain. Oh, and old white male supervisors that make those budgetary decisions. This bridge isn't far from the disaster at the bowstring. Gravel companies and big ag drive the bus up there. 400 crossings in that county.
Yes, it certainly should be left standing as the last inspection report gives no indication that it will collapse anytime in the near future. But beyond that the ADT count on this bridge is ridiculously low, and the small area it serves appears to be as much forest as agriculture. This bridge has served that area for 114 years and I see no reason it couldn't have be rehabbed for continued use.
His comment about ignorance was referring to the county's desire to remove the bridge instead of leaving it as-is for pedestrian usage.
Not ignorance really. Too many bridges with ag traffic. Small county budgets. How would you make those decisions Tony? They know what they have, or had. Saved a few I guess but are there solutions you could share for the county engineers?
Winneshiek County continues to flaunt their ignorance.
I hadn't noticed the plaques on this one before... Identical to Massillon plaques from the 1880's.
A new bridge has been built on new alignment and while the bridge is still standing it sounds like they plan demolition eventually. https://www.decorahnews.com/news-stories/2020/10/26607.html
Added the NRHP Registration Form for Lock and Dam No. 15. (Apparently there's a whole book of forms that concern Historic Places on the Upper Mississippi, but I did set the link for where Lock and Dam is in the book.)
Great added photos! In the first photo, this bridge appears to have one distinctive feature: a (somewhat lazy) guard dog.
It is the same bridge. Thank you very much for posting it and the website!
I believe I may have found a better picture of this long gone bridge. See uploaded file. The source of file is as follows> https://thelensofhistory.com/directory/root-samuel/
Glad those rails are there, that looks like quite a fall! XD
I finally got to see this breathtaking bridge in person and got to drive across it today. The thought of demolition of this magnificent structure is appalling to me, and talking to one of the residents of Lansing, the entire village is also in an uproar about it. The businesses in the village are in some way connected to the bridge, and its loss would also mean a tragic loss for Lansing’s identity as well. Many people have appealed to the Coast Guard to consider preservation options, but the Coast Guard does not seem to care, and has given a huge “F you” to the entire village. FAIL.
Visited this bridge right after the one in St. Olaf; still extant and looking to be in pretty good shape. Gotta love Iowa!
Visited this bridge on 10/14/2020; it is still extant and has no posted load limit. This bridge is mostly Warren configuration, but the center panel on each truss has a Pratt/like “X”, which I know has been brought up before on this website. The bridge looks to be in excellent condition with no pack rust or modifications that I could see. The bridge is fairly heavily used by trucks and farm equipment.
Nice find, Dave! Welcome back!
My Brother was killed on the east side of Bridge by
16 year old kids firing 22 rifle from west side of budge
On October 1 1967. My brother was deer hunting
I like how this abandoned bridge still has a better paint job than most bridges in Louisiana
Yep. It's annoying that they're not reusing it from a preservationist perspective. But having done some work in the area after the derecho, I'm not surprised they wanted it out of the way.
Looks like this ones a goner.
The link to the photo has gone dead.
I moved the location based on maps including this one:
There was another crossing of the other channel of the Nodaway east of here and I can't be sure if this bridge was here or to the east.
Some history in an article about the 2018 replacement:
This bridge was replaced in 2009.
Google street view also confirms replacement.
I had to stare at this one for a bit..I knew I had seen something similar before, but when I saw the almost perfect match in design, that was pretty cool. Looks like I'm gonna have to get back up to Allamakee County.
It's unfortunate that the Milwaukee Road Archives are no longer staffed. I would say its almost certain this bridge came from one of the many 1870s La Crosse spans, but I would love to know which channel it originally crossed. Being fabricated in 1876, the only railroad trusses I know in Iowa are older are both in Dubuque..
Good work finding that connection John, my first thought when I saw that portal bracing is it looked like something I had seen on an ancient railroad bridge but I couldn't remember where! This is a highly significant span!
Thank you so much for posting these pictures. To me, this very much looks like a railroad bridge that was reused. I was poking around a little bit, trying to see if I could find a similar span that would've been on the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad system. The Milwaukee Road had a branch which went right next to this bridge. Some bridges closer to Waterville appear to have been upgraded in the 1930s or 1940s, which aligns with when this bridge first shows up in aerial imagery in 1952.
I did manage to find a bridge with very similar details, located in Eau Claire, Wisconsin (http://bridgehunter.com/wi/eau-claire/bh47520/). The eastern two spans of that bridge were originally built in 1876, before being shortened from 160' and moved to the current location. That bridge was strengthened in 1941, but many of the original details are still evident. Judging by the photos posted, it appears the following details are identical:
-Portal and sway bracing is set on top of the truss, indicating a replacement of the original portals
-the endpost has a bevel in it where it meets the top chord
-the pinned connections rest on top of the floor beam
-the heel bracing on the sway bracing is virtually identical
-the vertical members are virtually identical
-all pin connections appear virtually identical
I believe confirmation that this span was originally built as a railroad span in 1876, before being moved to a branch line and eventually to road use could be had by finding this inscription on the vertical members: http://bridgehunter.com/photos/35/31/353162-L.jpg
While I have no way to confirm yet what the history of this bridge is, it does seem very likely that this span is related to the Eau Claire span.
This bridge was closed (not sure when) and ultimately lost this year. I took pictures of it back in May and took my wife to see it last month and it was gone.
Here are a couple pictures of this bridge from 09/20/2020
I visited this bridge on 9/20/2020 and took a few pictures. It is on a horse/hiking trail and is accessible by after about 100 yards of flat surface walking from a parking area.
I re-visited this bridge last night. It has been replaced with a large culvert in connection with development in the area from rural to residential.
Since the shown truss is a ISHC standard design, and the ISHC didn't exist until 1914, I think it's safe to say that the 1966 rehab was a replacement project.
Took a second look but that's a wrecking ball behind him.
The through truss span of this bridge is NOT a Howe truss. It is probably an early Warren truss with a web constructed of cast or wrought iron compression members and steel tension rod members.
Being repainted as of 7/8/2020
Visited here Aug 13, 2020 with my wife and son. Bridge is very solid although has some sketchy places you can see from the pedestrian walkway.
This bridge and little village are a must see if you're passing nearby. There is a nice pavilion for a group picnic, there are bathrooms, a weekend cafe, some nice friendly antique shops, a quaint rose garden. The grounds around the bridge are well kept and tidy. Below is the address for my son's video post of the Benetonsport Bridge walkover.
I was expecting to spend 40 mins here for the bridge doing pics & vids, instead we were here a couple hours and still had more to see. Keosauqua is upstream 6 miles and has some nice eateries and historic riverfront hotel. Another 8 miles west on Hwy 2 is the Dutchman Country Store which in Cantril is another fun store.
There are a few other abandoned bridges not far away in Van Buren Co, plus be sure to see the historic Wickfield Round Barn 2 miles east of Cantril.
Finally, Van Buren County has an annual celebration the 2nd Weekend of October with activities just about everywhere. The Wickfield Barn is open for tours as well.
It appears ca. 1972 in HistoricAerials.com looking new-ish and connecting to the CGW's line.
East of the Cheslea Creek bridge noted on the website, is another north/south wooden railroad bridge, hidden by foliage, that crosses Cheslea Creek just east of S. Benjamin. Anyone know anything about the bridge, the original owning railroad, etc.?
Visited here, Aug 31, 2020. Pretty overgrown and forlorn. However, bridge is easy to access, very good road, bridge is still pretty solid.
2019 aerial imagery shows this bridge being at least partially replaced. The trestle was undoubtedly replaced, and it is possible that the steel spans were also replaced:
Well that caboose proves that Milwaukee Road was a line with character!
These images are Richard Wilson photographs (Per HiawathaRails on Flickr) and I don't know if they're reusable on BH. I'll shoot a PM to HiawathaRails and try to sort that out.
The bridge in the photo is the Burlington Road Overpass https://bridgehunter.com/ia/muscatine/bh56993/, not Lowe Run.
In any case, these images are Richard Wilson photographs (Per HiawathaRails on Flickr) and I don't know if they're reusable on BH. I'll shoot a PM to HiawathaRails and try to sort that out.
Does the disc have any imagery of the bridges at Conesville?
found this photo off a disc
this is off a disc my friend has
I'm still shaking my head over the modern truss bridge being "historically relevant" comment... wtf!
This bridge is not entirely modern. There are still a dozen or more deck girder spans that are from the original 1903 structure.
The people running this city continue to be clueless, one of them being quoted as describing the process of demolishing this bridge and salvaging parts for display as taking "a couple guys and a blowtorch"
Apparently even "two men and a torch" is a "bridge to far" for this shortsighted city, who isn't willing to spend any more than $7,000 to "memorialize" the bridge. Let alone actually preserve this beautiful historic truss.
Over the last five-plus years, the Waverly City Council in various forms have debated what to do about the Third Street Southeast Bridge, known colloquially as the Green Bridge.
Built in 1917 as the Harmon Street Bridge, Third Street’s original name, the steel truss span was closed down in February 2015 after an inspection by WHKS & Co., the city’s bridge manager, found structural deficiencies. Since then, the council haltingly considered different remedies for the bridge, from fixing it to replacing it with a pedestrian bridge to current plans to simply remove it.
As the removal studies continue by WHKS, current council members considered preserving a portion of the bridge for a non-working display. However, on Monday, they changed course.
Following an amendment proposed by Ward 4 Councilwoman Heather Beaufore, the council approved a resolution to have city staff memorialize the Green Bridge with plaques at either end of the bridge site or at a point in South Riverside Park that currently overlooks the span with a budget of $7,000.
City Administrator James Bronner told the council that staff didn’t necessarily want to preserve a part of the bridge, but he wanted to start a conversation over how to memorialize it. He brought forward an estimated cost from WHKS of $55,000 to move a complete span of the bridge.
“I know there has been a lot of discussions of should we move it all, should we do a piece of it, a full span, etc.,” Bronner said. “That’s where I leave it to you, as council, to do the discussion.”
In past meetings, members had discussed moving a piece of the bridge into Brookwood Park, into the portion where former water treatment silos currently stand. Mayor Adam Hoffman had told Waverly Newspapers on Monday prior to the meeting that another possibility was to put the bridge on a pylon in the river near South Riverside Park.
However, the $55,000 price tag seemed to be a sticking point for some council members, while the safety and liability of having the structure on display would be a detriment to the city.
Beaufore added that placing a piece of the bridge within the flood plain could be a hazard whenever the Cedar River leaves its banks in the southeast quadrant of town.
“It could be dangerous for people down river when it floods,” Beaufore said. “I would personally prefer something much smaller scale.
“I frequently go on walks, seeing some of the monuments with the rocks and the bronze plate and pictures and little stories about historical structures. I really like those. They’re really pretty. They give you facts, they give you something to stop and look at and read, and they’re not really dangerous to be going floating down the river.”
At-Large Councilwoman Ann Rathe added that many of the people she spoke to were not generally in favor of the bridge preservation idea, but not because of fears of whether it would float away.
She asked Leisure Services Director Garret Riordan what the cost would be to do a display similar to those, for example, near the Cedar River Dam and the Ira Sturdevant House.
Riordan said the signs at the dam were “right at” $2,000 each.
“(It would depend on) what extent if we wanted to go that way, how many signs there would be, pictures there would be, that type of thing, would have to be considered,” Riordan said.
Bronner also asked if the council wanted to do a smaller-scale memorial of the bridge if they wanted to utilize pieces of the span, namely a girder or flooring.
“We’ve had some things thrown at us by some citizens about some possible looks that could be done,” he said, “but I don’t know what the cost of that is to set aside, cut parts of it off and then dispose of it, that’s also unknown. We didn’t have a good direction how to move forward, how big, etc.”
At-Large Councilman Matt Schneider said that was his idea as well, but he also didn’t know how to proceed, either.
“I’m thinking in terms of cost, a blow torch and two guys, I’m not sure what that is,” Schneider said.
Ward 1 Councilman Brian Birgen also related concerns about liability from people climbing onto the old bridge in a park.
“I agree with Ann that I haven’t heard from anybody who’s 100% in favor of putting a span in the park or preserving a span as much as everybody wants some kind of memorial,” Birgen said. “The idea of something in South Riverside Park that’s overlooking the area where the bridge used to be, with some kind of picture or engraving of what the bridge looked like from that view, I think, would be very welcome.
“We could also put some kind of marking at either end of where the span used to be. … That’s going to get a whole lot less foot traffic if there’s no bridge there.”
He added the $55,000 estimate for preserving a whole section of the bridge is high based on the city’s benefit. He didn’t see the value of spending that much to memorialize the bridge in Brookwood Park, which he said was “off the beaten path.”
Beaufore tossed a few possible budget numbers before settling on $7,000, and asked if there was some way for either staff or a committee or commission to come up with a way to satisfy the goals within that limit. Bronner said she could amend the original $55,000 resolution, which she did.
“WHKS is going to need to tweak the agreement slightly if, in fact, they need to move the span to the park, or if they have to place it somewhere to have pieces cut out of it and then take it away,” Bronner said. “We’re wanting to get an idea of where council sits.”
Of course you might end up living under the bridge Mike... But Hell, it's worth a try! 😜
You’re going about it all wrong. You to tell your spouse in passing: ‘I’m going to buy a bridge.’ The response will be ‘yes dear.’ Imagine her surprise when she discovers you were serious :^)
Yes, Art. That would be awesome, but I'm sure the wife would veto
Meh, par for the course. You guys were talking about taking that cute little bridge home and having it in your back yard. I say 'go big or go home!' :^)
Actually, most people say 'someone should' but few are willing take on the responsibility. I think the tide is turning and people are stepping up but a historic bridge seems to be a bit more intimidating than a historic house to most people.
Personally, I think it could be the ultimate back deck! :^)
Looks like a King to me.
I love the overhead bracing... Except the ugly beams that appear to have been welded on at a later date.
There's nothing more frustrating than reading that all these people thought it was a good idea to save this bridge, and yet it's gone!
On the subject of this bridge, I think the postcard Art uploaded to https://bridgehunter.com/ia/dallas/bh71649/ is also of this bridge.
Art, not much help but it was replaced in 1935
Des Moines Register: July 26 1935
I'm fairly confident this is a Wrought Iron Bridge Co. product. The shadows suggest a Keystone Column arch.
This is the funniest "meme" I've seen about this year. Well done Luke!
That's for damn sure!
Luke, truth 💯
Bridgeis confirmed gone by locals. A summary of the bridge demo and new span here: https://bridgehunterschronicles.wordpress.com/2020/07/22/his...
It's ultimately a shame, because Hardin City and Eagle City could easily have been reused at Pine Lake State Park as the two pedestrian structures crossing the spillway/connecting channel between Upper/Lower Pine Lake instead of the MOBs that are there now.
I'm surprised Mr. Vlotho didn't have his crew dismantling this one WHILE it was being moved. The bridge would have been better off left standing next to it's replacement, as is it's going to pot.
Not surprising that Vlotho, who later was fired from Hardin county for illegally demolishing the Eagle City Bowstring, thought so lowly of historic structures.
Explored this area from Commerce Drive last week.
It's easy to see where the bridge was, as there's an *extremely* short stub road with a railroad crossing, (including crossing lights!) off Commerce, that dead ends immediately across the tracks in a couple of private drives that go left and right.
Passed through the area a week ago (7/12/2020) and only one section of the old bridge was remaining. Likely gone by now.
Bridge will be demolished in the coming weeks. From what I understand, the girders will be reused somehow on the new bridge (probably as decorations?), and the center pier will be retained for the new bridge. The old abutments will be demolished.
Is there any information as to when this bridge was replaced? Thanks.
Apparently the new bridge is open. But I still see the old bridge in this news article photo. I was assuming the historic bridge would be demolished, maybe that has yet to occur? https://www.rtands.com/freight/iowa-interstate-railroad-ltd-...
See this article for history of the line:
This says that the abandonment of the line from What Cheer to Consol (the end of the line beyond Buxton, at the last mine operated by the Consolidation Coal Company) was authorized by the ICC in 1935, although traffic stopped in 1934 when storms washed out bridges on Coal Creek (between the Des Moines River and Buxton).
The article also dates the opening of the line to Buxton to 1901. The bridge has to have been in place for this, and was probably built no earlier than 1900.
This bridge was built by the C&NW around 1900 in order to extend its line to the coal fields west of the river. In 1884, the C&NW built a 64-mile branch from Belle Plaine to Muchakinock, to reach the coal mines operated by its subsidiary, the Consolodation Coal Company (of Iowa). By 1900, the mines around Muchakinok were exhausted, and Consolidated had acquired new coal lands southwest of the Des Moines River. The C&NW built this bridge as part of its effort to reach those new mines, centered on the new coal camp of Buxton, around 1900. Buxton, at its peak, was the largest company town in the United States and home of the largest United Mine Workers local in the country. The line was abandoned after the last of Consolidation's coal mines closed in 1927.
Found the article the now-gone blog hosted a clipping of.
I'd say you're on the money, Douglas.
I recently uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons that I am convinced is of this bridge under construction circa 1898. See:
I've consulted with the editor of the Burlington Railroad Historical Society, who sent the photo to me from the BRHS collection. The evidence for identifying the photo with this bridge is as follows:
1) barely discernable, the photo shows the B&W narrow gauge train to be on dual gauge track. This constrains it to being on the BCR&N track from Burlington to Mediapolis.
2) Looking at the photo, the distance between the stone abutments is hard to estimate, but it's perhaps 3 times the length of the M&STL box car that's on the bridge. The car is perhaps 35 feet long, suggesting a bridge length of 90 to 120 feet. Looking at the bridges on the line, this limits it to RI - Dry Branch Creek Bridges #1-3. No others are in this length range.
3) Looking closely at the stonework, you can see that the two stone abutments are angled away from the camera to the left. This rules out Dry Branch Bridge #2, where the angle would be to the right.
4) The surviving original stonework for Dry Branch Bridge #3 looks wrong, without the thin on top of medium on top of thicker easily visible in the photo.
5) Both Dry Branch Bridge #1 and #3 are on broad curves of the rail line to the left. The telephone pole on the far side of the creek has a prop on the left side appropriate for such a curve.
6) The view along the valley ahead of the train shows no topography. That's what I'd expect at Bridge #1, where the setting is at a branch in the valley with streams that end up paralleling the tracks on both sides and no hills rise for 0.2 miles, so scattered trees can hide them. At Bridge #3, the valley is narrower, I would expect hills.
Now, about the photo: It's obvious that the BCR&N tracks are on a wood trestle and that the new abutments have been built around that trestle and new fill has been placed behind the abutments, partially burying the trestle. Out in mid channel, there's timber cribwork holding up the trestle. Presumably, that's temporary support while the center pier of the two-span bridge is being built. They're clearly not ready to bring in the ironwork yet for this bridge.
Thanks, I've never seen one with the "deck" missing.
That's not a stone deck over the rails. Just a line of heavy stone along each edge of the rail deck. The deck is solid rails laid side to side, with ballast over the top. The stone sides are to retain the ballast.
This culvert is over one branch of Rapid Creek. I've examined numerous rail-topped culverts of the BCR&N, topped with old 65# rail built on Cedar Valley Quarry limestone blocks. This is the only such culvert I've examined that has 2 spans with an intermediate pier, and the only one I've examined that was built under what must have been 2 or 3 parallel tracks, and the only one I've examined that is on a diagonal to the centerline of the former track. In addition, it is the only one I've examined with two layers of rail. One layer is perependicular to the axis of the culvert, the other is parallel to the line of the track.
All the RI - Dry Branch Creek Bridges were built by the Burlington Cedar Rapids and Northern RR, at a time when the Burlington and Northwestern Ry (narrow gauge, it's in Wikipedia) had running rights on this part of the line. This particuar bridge is unusual for the line, with lots of brick in the foundations. Most of the BCR&N bridges were built with stone block foundations using stone from the Cedar Valley quarry (served by the line, of course).
Here's a newspapers.com page with an article with the history of the road's name.
And the mystery comes to a close: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/542030150/
Unfortunately this bridge was replaced by a cement slab bridge in 2019.
I have lived near this bridge most of my life and I have never heard it referred to as McCaffrey bridge. It has always been referred to by locals as the Twin Bridges.
Unfortunately this bridge has been closed. It is still standing.
The first bridge on this site was built by the Central Iowa Railway in 1882. This line was an ancestor of the Iowa Central, which was absorbed by the M&STL. All of these lines came into Coppock by a bridge across Crooked Creek, geographic coordinates 41.162778,-91.716111. I don't know the history of either bridge in any more detail, but: The Central Iowa Railway and the Burlington and Western both built through Coppock, Iowa in 1882, and fought serious battles over the alignment of their Skunk River bridges, with crews from each line tearing out work done by the other. In the end, they built parallel spans. I believe that State Highway 78 roughly follows the alignment of the B&W through Coppock. The CB&Q took over the B&W in 1903 and abandoned the line in 1934. Links to my sources for this discussion are in the new Wikipedia page for the Burlington and Western Railway. The lengths of the two Skunk River bridges built by the B&W are in their annual reports -- this being the longest bridge on their line, the early reports give figures like number of iron bridges, average length of iron bridges, and longest iron bridge.
The bridge over Lingle Creek was north of this culvert and no longer exists: https://bridgehunter.com/ia/johnson/bh57864/
The creek is named Lingle Creek.
Current aerial doesn't bode well for the bridge...
Another view: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/543051845/
The picture you have under the heading 150 bridge, with the mill in the picture is not the 150 bridge but First Street bridge. The small iron bridge parts are not from a previous bridge in this location but from somewhere else.
The picture you have under the heading 150 bridge, with the mill in the picture is not the 150 bridge but First Street bridge. The small iron bridge parts are not from a previous bridge in this location but from somewhere else.
Closed for a couple of weeks for deck panel replacement.