St Charles Air Line Bridge
-Commission on Chicago Landmarks, Historic Chicago Railroad Bridges report
The Southern most bridge in the down position is the SCAL bridge and is still in use by the CNRR. The Northern, stored in the up position is the B&O/Chicago Terminal RR Bridge and is now abandoned.
I've heard others comment that these bridges share a counterweight but I am not sure that's actually what they share if they share anything. Maybe operating equipment? The Air Line Bridge has wing style counterweights and they should not need any supplemental support. In fact they should be overbuilt and may have had to be reduced in weight, since the Air Line Bridge originally was a couple panels longer and when it was moved here it was made shorter. There is no evidence that the counterweights are connected to B&O Bridge... moreover, if they were connected, wouldn't both bridges have to move at the same time? The Air Line Bridge raises and lowers while the B&O stays put. If anyone can clarify the shared counterweight rumor that would be awesome.
Actually I think CSX still owns the B&O portion of the bridge since they cannot abandon that part due to the fact the bridges share a counterweight.
Don't get me wrong. If there's an interesting painting, drawing or art of some kind of a a particular bridge. By all means post it. THATS interesting. But 2,3,5,10 of each. If you look at the updates page anymore all you find is 1000's of one persons drawings. One or two of each is plenty.
Given the pen chance for any separate categories....the snapshots in time showing different stages of those bridges are interesting to me. I don't spend a lot of time on that span style, still intrigues.
Art is in the eye of the viewer, those paintings of the past are sure treasures, they say these decades will be the lost ones with no bits to find in the shops of our past. All digital?
I'd like to see those abstracts, never did that style either.
Julie, I absolutely agree! I previously uploaded an image of a painting that hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art of a bridge, done in the 1800's, that both conveys more than a period photo would and as there are no photos of that bridge, it represents the only image of a long lost bridge.
That said, as reference, unless they are technical drawings, art is subjective as opposed to objective, which, in my opinion, distracts from the overall bridge entry as a research tool. As an example, I plan on a series of bridge paintings as well. I plan on doing them in the style of Jackson Pollack. While each painting will represent a specific bridge, I highly doubt they would add value to the entry for the bridge as reference documents. Thus my suggestion of a separate category.
Also, my previous post was sincere, I really did break out in laughter when I flipped through all of Douglas' sketches.
Art (and I don't mean Art S) is as valid as any of the photographs. What truly is the problem? Don't look at them if you aren't interested. Can you draw? I do paintings of bridges too, and I've posted a few. I'll start posting some more. At one point I had intended to do a painting for every bridge we do, can't keep up, maybe this will be incentive.
Oh my god! That's awesome! Thanks for the comment, otherwise I would never have looked. I literally laughed when I saw the number of drawings! I didn't realize Douglas did more that one picture per bridge. Now, if we could just convince him to do a new picture of this bridge every day, we'd be all set.
It's too bad we can't have a separate section as a repository of the vast pencil sketch collection - we could have 'guess the bridge' contests :^)
Enough already with the frigging drawings.