Recent Kentucky Comments
Post a comment Contact webmasterThis bridge was destroyed by a logging truck in the fall of 2011. It was replaced by a modern concrete structure in the spring of 2013.
Thanks Clark, very interesting!
The plate in photo 2 is a USGS survey mark. It indicates a point that is surveyed accurately enough that it can be used as a reference point for other surveys.
This magnificent historic bridge with its unique approach spans is slated for demolition! http://www.kentucky.com/2013/04/27/2617901/historic-mercer-county-bridge.html
I had the pleasure of driving across this bridge once. A few years later (2002), I canoed past its wreckage in the creek bed. Has anyone yet salvaged the metal? It was very much visible from the road.
Here is a photo of the TTI bridge from 1-11-2009, that crosses the Main Licking River
Here is a recent photo from 4-13-2013.
Vertigo Bungee has announced plans to conduct jumps in May 2013. they are quaoted as saying that they are planning on hosting jumping four to ten weeks a year and potentially be open to sightseers. This according to an article in the May 2013 "Trains" magazine.
These are photo's of remains collapse on 4-8-2013
Some pictures of bridge being torn down
Bridge was fully dismantled mid March-Early April 2013.
A FYI, this bridge was part of the Ohio and Kentucky Railway. The line from O&K Junction 1.37 miles from Jackson to Cannel City was constructed in 1910-1911 and abandoned in 1933.
I did a bit of history of the line at http://www.abandonedonline.net/railroads/ohio-and-kentucky-railway/.
I'm not sure what all this entails, whether good or bad.
Condemnation suit could be pursued in effort to force opening K&I Bridge to walkers, bicyclists
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130309/NEWS01/303090055/1001/rsslink
Tunnel is under US 31-W not under CSX as you have stated.
You can find the strange story of William Branham's vision of the bridge at http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/The_Municipal_Bridge_Vision
This bridge should still be there. This railroad was decommissioned a long time ago.
The tracks as far as at least Lebanon were still used in the mid-80's. I remember a train ride from Boston to Lebanon for Ham Days or something when I was little.
Now the tracks are used from Lebanon Junction (where it hits the main L&N line) to New Haven. There's still an old bridge over a tributary of Pottinger Creek, but they're pulled up beyond that.
This bridge would be on the line that currently goes from New Haven on to the main line. There's a Kentucky Railway Museum in New Haven and they have train rides to LJ, sometimes having a "Thomas the Tank Engine" engine.
According to wikipedia, the Louisville and Jeffersonville Bridge Co was formed in 1887 to build the bridge. Due to accidents in construction, they went bankrupt and sold it to the Big Four.
So, apparently, they were a consortium of local interests that wanted to construct and own a bridge. This is the only bridge they were associated with.
You have to be very careful when assessing old bridges. When they say that "Louisville and Jeffersonville Bridge Company" built the bridge they are not referring to a company that fabricates or constructs bridges. They are referring to a private company that was formed to finance, own, and operate the bridge. For clarity, these entities should be referred to as owners, not builders.
That builder built the original bridge in 1893.
According to this link, http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=24916.0, the builder of the bridge is the Louisville and Jeffersonville Bridge Company. If this info is correct and maybe someone would like to confirm this, then the L@J Bridge Co. would seem to be a local firm. This begs the question, what other bridges did they build and what happened to them?
I don't know a lot about Virginia Bridge and Iron, if they built big bridges like this? One company that was notorious for building monstrosities was McClintic Marshall Company, and I did find a plaque with similar bolt positions, but this alone in my opinion is not enough to establish builder.
http://www.historicbridges.org/truss/southern/bkg_winmw41.JPG
Virginia Bridge and Iron then? While many are the four bolted plaques there are several over the years with just two in that fashion.
I am not saying American Bridge did not build this bridge. However, the photo of a plaque scar below is a plaque that would NOT have followed the standard American Bridge Company plaque for that period. So if they did build this bridge, they either used a non-standard plaque, or their plaque was located elsewhere on the bridge. Here is a plaque from 1930:
http://www.historicbridges.org/pennsylvania/dowlerjunction/pict9361.jpg
I'd say AmBridge is a good bet for the builder.
Certain railroad used certain builders almost exclusively.
With the American Bridge Company being such a big builder in the Louisville area, building the K&I bridge and the 2nd street bridge. Is it plausible that this bridge is most likely the work of that firm?
Nathan, Sorry I did not have time to caption the photos yesterday, but that is the incomplete ramp on the Indiana side of the bridge. Currently you can walk to the edge of the bridge were there is a fence that keeps you from going any further.
The railings on the top chord mentioned below show up in 1975 HAER documentation, so they are not new or part of this current conversion for pedestrian use. They very likely are just railings for bridge inspections. Large bridges like this often have handrails on the top of the top chord so bridge inspectors can safely navigate the structure. As an interesting example elsewhere, the Quebec Bridge actually has an entire truss system framed around the top chord eyebars that provides a walkway for inspectors.
Could be that they're going to offer the same climbing trips that they offered on the Purple People/L & N Bridge between Newport and Cincinnati. I think they discontinued the trips, but they were big news for a brief time.
Hmmm....
Looking good.
Are the handrails at the top of the truss for the "extreme" pedestrian? The guy that wants a better view and a little more challenge to his hike across the river?
I would be curious to see some description/explanation for photo 91 of 117. Is this an additional, incomplete approach for the bridge? Or can you not walk all the way across yet? I assume its closed because it does not have real railings. And is that a glass deck?
Looks great JP!
Will look forward to seeing more pics!!
Bridge is officially open. Here is a teaser photo from all the photos I took.
Bridge opens on Thursday at 11am. I plan to be there, will be bringing back tons of photos!!!!
This bridge was built in 1934, but the covered bridge that it replaced was taken down in 1921 according to this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=SgQ2_U8H4Q8C&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=covered+bridge+perryville+ky&source=bl&ots=V77TdGIxA5&sig=g2k6qXzx9M4VMKshCvTy40thjvI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3678UMTGNorA8ASRrYGIBQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=covered%20bridge%20perryville%20ky&f=false
So the bridge survived the Civil War but was taken down later, however, if it was taken down in 1921 and the new bridge was built in 1934 what was there during the interim?
This bridge was recently shown on a recent episode of Moonshiners on the Discovery Channel
Through the 50's this was a "walking" bridge, maybe 3' wide and was replaced by the vehicle bridge in the 60's maybe?
Wow, love it! The lattice and V-lacing make it look especially amazing! I like the builder plaques too; they are very similar to the ones that were attached to the pony truss approaches on the former Shanley Road Bridge in Elk County, Pennsylvania...interestingly enough, this bridge and the main spans of that bridge were built by the same company, but the approach spans were built by Nelson & Buchanan after they ended their relationship with Pttsburgh Steel...the unique shape must be a Nelson & Buchanan trademark. I wish I had a driveway with a bridge like this for a river crossing!
Great find James! A real beauty!!
This could easily be the oldest, and oldest still in use, bridge in KY.
This bridge is to be replaced in 2015.
This one looks like a mongrel that was made from some spare parts that were laying around the county highway department yard.
This is very interesting. I'm new to the area and travel 11 up to Ohio for work often. I have seen the remnants of the bridge (kind of looks like a small shop) now I know exactly what it is. Thanks for puting the pictures up and sharing the info.
This one is odd and the other one next drive over (http://bridgehunter.com/ky/bullitt/bh55161/) is equally odd. I suppose there's a story behind these two spans and how they got here.
Looks like it has rivets, so I wouldn't call it a MOB. MOBs would be welded. An interesting bridge of lightweight design.
Very unusual bridge I have never seen anything quite like this before (which is saying something). Its a pony truss, but the configuration is sporadic. I wonder if this was originally even a bridge, or if it was once longer than what we see. I think there is more to this story than just a relocated bridge.
Hard to tell when this bridge was constructed. It might be a possible WWII era structure. Obviously, it is not anything pre-1900, but I don't necessarily think it is a MOB either.
My suspicion is that the connections are either riveted or welded. These types of connections are seen on mid-20th century trusses. MOBs tend to not have much in the way of connections at all. They also tend to have a more pre-fabricated look (okay, all trusses are pre-fabricated to some degree, but you see what I mean).
This bridge is confusing. First of all Google Earth say this is King's Church Rd., but this looks like just a private driveway and King's Church Rd. is just to the south of this driveway. I am wondering if this driveway could be an old alignment or if Google Earth is wrong.
Next, is this bridge a real historic pony truss or is it an MOB? I personally think its a historic pony truss, but J.P., the other bridgehunter that was with me thinks its an MOB. I think its historic by looking at the rods on the bottom in the closeup pics. We could not get on the bridge itself because it is on private property and was fenced off. At the time the owner of the property was not available for permission so we had to take pics from the adjacent property.
Anyway, is this bridge real or not? Any help will be gladly accepted.
Here is an interesting bridge: Its certainly old and has been relocated. One can see in the pictures, especially photo 5, that the bridge's original supports have been cut off. Anyway, wanting to know what kind of bridge this is, can it be considered a pony truss? And if so, what kind?
I ran up on this site by accident
just for your info this bridge was built in 1928 and not 1938..I now own the farm it was built on..
This bridge used to be the original alignment of US 31 into Louisville from New Albany, Indiana. US 31 was realigned onto the 2nd Street Bridge when it opened, however the K and I bridge remained opened until a truck caused some minor damage to the decking in the 70's.
The soft opening of the Big Four Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge will be delayed until late January/early February due to a holdup in the fabrication of the railings for the bridge. The balance of the railings for the bridge will not be received until mid-January, and installation could take several weeks. As safety is of utmost importance, the bridge cannot be opened until all railings are installed.
When opened in late January/early February, the bridge will be complete with railings, lights, benches, signage, and the simulated rail bed down the middle.
My guess would be that the King Bridge Co. built the newer span.
I agree Anthony. It has what appears to be Phoenix Columns and the details on the bridge are very Phoenix Bridge Co looking. I would assume this was fabricated by Phoenix Bridge Co and installed by King Bridge Co. Anyone know if this can be verified?
Chances are pretty good that the old tin roof building across the river was alongside the bridge's eastern approach as well.
Pretty cool, but not sure what the coordinates 36.99782, -84.60837 are supposed to show.
Found the east entrance in Bing Bird's Eye View at 36.989185,-84.611657 rotate the bing imagery 90 degrees clockwise for the eastern view.
The west entrance is at 36.989005,-84.612612 rotate imagery 90 degrees counter clockwise for western view.
I'll just go ahead and edit the coordinates to the position of the east entrance.
Don
Does anyone know when the tunnel was constructed?
Any photos of it?
Thank you love these old photos.
The first time I saw this bridge would have been about 1972 when I was 4 years old. I remember being down by the first pier of the kentucky side with my family looking for driftwood for some kind of craft project. I fell in love with it then and have wanted to walk it ever since. Now I'm 44 and will soon finally be able to. :)
Bridge is set to open in a couple weeks. Final Cost of the rail to trail project is 22 million. Jeffersonville will have its ramp completed in the spring. But for now you will be able to walk across from Louisville to the end of the bridge.
Nice captions, man. ;^)
Almost looks more like a trellis than a bridge, with all the plants climbing or growing through it. Does it bloom in spring?
Thank you for the information and the directions. Our geology club is interested in this tunnel and the lithology. Your efforts are commended!
Actually, the bridge is not owned by Norfolk Southern. Neither is the entire rail line from Cincinnati to Chattanooga. You'd be surprised to know, the City of Cincinnati, Ohio owns the railroad line outright. Norfolk Southern leases the line from them. The line was built by the city starting in 1873 and was completed in 1879. It was built under them as the Cincinnati Southern railroad. The Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific (CNO&TP) began leasing the line soon after, in fact, they were responsible for completing the lining of the 27 tunnels that once occupied the line. Two of which are located about 1/4 mile south of this bridge, where the old bridge sat. Tunnels 3 and 4 are located there. 3 goes under the KY 90 interchange. 4 pops out 100 feet from the old bridge's abbutment. The original bridge was a simple steel structure that was curved on the east/south end. It was bypassed by this one during the raising and creation of Lake Cumberland. In the early 20th century, the Southern Railway acquired the CNO&TP and also its lease with Cincinnati. In 1982 Southern Railway merged with the Norfolk & Western creating Norfolk Southern. NS retained the lease and it expires in 2026. NS will likely renew the lease. In 2009 the city made over 19 million dollars off the lease agreement.
Bedstead trusses must have end posts that extend below the bottom chord which this bridge does not. The unusual details you can definitely see on this bridge at the pier point is apparently due to the skew. Hard to see exactly what is going on from just a street view.
I think it might be an old road turned driveway, because the road leads to a farm it looks likes.
I can understand why this one doesn't show up on NBI, but the other one kinda puzzles me.
Got another for ya Bill. Right down the creek from the Saw Mill Bridge.
Looks like a Black Friday trip for me.
You can kind of the see truss in bird eye.
Question on this bridge, if you look at the street view, the span on the left when it gets to the center pier seems to be bedstead on the side closest to the camera while the other side had a normal skewed look.....thoughts on this.
This bridge was closed on 11-17-2012, with the opening of the replacement bridge just north.
As I lived with my Grand Parents on the hill at the tipple end, I walked the span of the original bridge thousands of times during my childhood and early adult life, recalling each time where the holes and weak spots were located in the wooden deck floor. It was a much simpler, less complicated life then. I wish we could return to that era as we didn't know how good a life we had and as a result couldn't wait to run away to the 'big city' and 'bright lights.' Some of my favorite memories are of standing on the bridge at night light provided by only the moon and a million twinkling stars which cast a silver glow to the surroundings, hearing the gentle roar of the water as it passed over the dam, the white foam and mist created as it dropped into the lower pool. I viewed with awe the power of the river as viewed from the span above during the spring flood as it swept under, carrying dead animals, smashed structures, trees, john boats, canoes, and bottles and jugs by the thousands. I later retrieved one of the john boats, repaired it and made great use of the craft by visiting abandoned apple and pear orchards, and unpicked blackberry and strawberry patches, reaping from each fruits which we would can for later use. I used the craft for fishing and to take me to and from hard to get at squirrel and rabbit hunting sites, to gather liquor bottles which I then washed and sold to the local "distillers" for a nickle each. Good Money, when you had very little. On a good day I could earn $5.00 or more. That, at a time when a 12 oz RC and a bag of Tom's peanuts cost $0.20. At those times I felt as if I were walking on top of the world even higher than the bridge truss work.
I remember a couple of my friends climbing the truss work and walking the length of the bridge, from bank to bank and then climbing back down. I never had the nerve but I later jumped from airplanes and they didn't...so there Tom!
My Grandfather, Clyde Wilson,Sr., my Step-Father, Ernest Reece, along with Virgil Newman, and a little help (very little) from myself and Timmy Reece replaced the wooded floor deck and tire strips on the original bride during the summer of 1964. It was a horrendous, dangerous and back breaking job as we had no cranes, no forklifts no pneumatic or electric tools. Manual wrenches, hand drills, hand saws and man power only. No safety belts, straps or nets. I sometimes wonder how we escaped having someone killed.
The year the replacement bridge (existing) was constructed by out of town laborers much to the delight of the local girls. there were several romances and unplanned "encumbrances" as a result. I later learned several marriages, divorces and bitter words were the result of these "foreigners" visit to our little valley.
Although I am glad the new structure was erected it was a very sad day when the old span was completely removed. Along with it went thousands of memories, good and bad, but such is progress.
One of my most cherished memento's from that time is an original nailer strip mounting bolt from the wooden floor support steel I-Beams. We had to replace the originals with new bolts during our project and I kept one to use as a paperweight. Luckily, I have kept it with me. Just a rusty hunk of useless iron with a corroded steel nut but a reminder of my childhood home and the memories created during those gentle times.
I too, will have my ashes scattered from the bridge into the Kentucky River, there to mingle with the soil and water of my home, becoming one with the most beautiful places provided mankind by God during his creation of the Earth.
My Will instructs by heirs to perform this chore as a sign of their respect for me, my wishes and my love of place.
On the Indiana side the stone abutment is a actually an old Limestone quarry they have converted for use.
Thanks, Sherman. I will definitely use your pic for the Bridgehunter's Chronicles article I'm compiling at the moment. I'll make sure you are cited accordingly and will send you a copy when it's done!
Here is a photograph. Feel free to use it.
It was a former double tracked L&N line, now single tracked. The former southbound lanes now serve the power plant up to the Kentucky River, where the bridge and associated tunnel are now abandoned.
This bridge unfortunately collapsed a few days ago when a farmer attempted to cross it. I may check it out Sunday afternoon. I have photographs of the bridge - asked the individual in the trailer for access.
http://bridgestunnels.com/bridges/kentucky/south-fork-grassy-creek-bridge-ky-1657/
Nathan is absolutely correct.
That’s why when you look at the drawing from the "generic" swing bridge I posted yesterday you will notice the entire end of the truss is highlighted meaning all of those are tension members.
If you have studied engineering you will know that you can not have every member in tension like that at one time. The reason all of them are highlighted is due to the reversal of forces. When the bridge is closed and under traffic the bridge acts as a continuous truss supported at both ends and in the center. Under these conditions the bottom chord will take tension loading for a set distance. When the bridge is open it acts like a continuous truss that is cantilevered from the center without end support. Under these conditions the bottom chord will take no tension loading and only compression.
All of these movable bridges are pretty amazing machines. The ability to balance such a tremendous amount of weight and have it glide in and out of place is pretty remarkable, especially considering the technology in which these structures were designed and built with.
Swing bridges are supported at only the pier when open, but supported at the ends when closed (note that swing bridges have end wedges that lock the bridge in place and allow load transfer to abutments). As such, some forces may change and even reverse in a swing bridge when open or closed. This is likely why swing bridges have odd configurations that are difficult to classify.
I agree with these statements also; with the entire span essentially supported at the center pier, this span basically functions as an upside-down Pratt. When viewed upside down, the diagonals actually slope inward and are under tension, true to Pratt truss design. Interesting!
This is a very common truss arrangement for a center pivot swing bridge. The forces in the members are as described by Fmiser. Since it is continuous over the center pier one must remember the forces essentially act in reverse over the pier, with tension in the top chord and compression in the bottom chord.
I attached a photo of a “generic” swing bridge (without any particular name) showing the general forces. The solid black members are the ones that are generally in tension.
So as Fmiser stated the truss acts more like a Pratt than anything else, though I do not necessarily agree with calling it a Pratt. Swing bridges are sort of a unique beast since they not only carry static loads (traffic, self-weight ect.) but also dynamic loading when opened.
Interesting.
I make no guarantees about the accuracy of my sketch. Bird's Eye view (as well as my vision) seems to be a little skewed anyway, so what appears to be vertical might not quite be.
I see what you say about the diagonals all being under tension, and that appears to be correct when the bridge is swung open parallel with the river, but then it is(hopefully) only carrying it's own weight plus a bird or two.
When closed,and carrying a train, I assume the piers also carry some load, in which case I see what you are saying about the center of the bridge being two verticals from the outer piers where the diagonals oppose each other. The Pratt type section then lies between the two piers on either side.
Interesting too that the inside two piers appear to be positioned at the center of a panel instead of under a vertical member, but that might be a perception thing.
I'm going to have to do a little research on swing bridges.
Thanks,
Don
> Don wrote:
> Is this correctly described as a Warren truss?
If your sketch is accurate, it is not a Warren.
It does kinda look like a Howe - but that is misleading because it is a center-supported swing rather than an end-supported fixed span. As drawn, the diagonals are under tension load thus making it a Pratt. Think of it as a two span bridge joined in the middle at the swing bearing. Viewed that way, the center of each span is not the truss center. The truss center is two verticals from the abutments. Then the diagonals slope down toward the "center" just as a Pratt should.
However, if what is shown as verticals are not vertical but actually slope, then Warren would probably be correct.
That's my opinion! *smiles*
Oh, yeah. Forgot to mention that I looked at it in Bing Bird's Eye to make my nice sketch. You might want to look at that, too.
Okay. While looking at a bridge downstream that lies on the Jefferson /Hardin line, I got curious about this bridge.
I added that it crosses the Bullitt / Hardin line.
Is this correctly described as a Warren truss? It looks unusual to me. It is a swing span, but it looks like two identical trapezoidal trusses joined at the pivot. Mostly similar to a Howe truss, with a little pratt at the ends, and the center joining structure is similar to Baltimore.
I have rendered it in MS Paint for your viewing pleasure.
Derailment was North of the Bridge and the bridge itself is not effected but is closed until the clean up is complete.
train derailment this morning, near or on this bridge. its been declared a level 3 hazmat situation. not sure of damage to bridge.
Additional history info is at http://www.hendersonkyhistory.com/BridgeBoom.htm
I do too; I think it looks very nice; much better than any UCEB! Also, this bridge was built where there was no bridge or railroad previously, meaning that it did not replace an historic bridge, which is also a big plus.
Some information I discovered about the original Bridge, Evansville actually was opposed to any bridge crossing the Ohio River into Indiana due to the idea that People living in Kentucky would take jobs from Indiana people. But due to the earthquake of 1812 the river had shifted to its current course leaving a portion of the Ohio River entirely in Kentucky. Thus leaving open the fact that Kentucky did not Indiana to build the Bridge and thus you now have the location of the twins.
Modern. But I like it. It beats Yet Another Ugly Extruded Concrete Bridge.
Unlike some of the new MOB pedestrian bridges that I don't have much respect for...this is not a bad looking bridge and sure beats what could have been built here.
I still like seeing truss bridges painted, but since this is a process that is rarely performed with any regularity...it makes sense to produce ones that are low maintenance.
These new bridges are not 'just rusting out'. They are made from 'weathering steel' also known by the popular brand name CorTen steel. Only a thin outer layer rusts and then the rust coating actually prevents further corrosion. It's very strong, long lasting and best of all, nearly maintenance free (no painting and repainting required).
Can we see the picture?
My daughter had to do an artistic picture demonstrating archetypes of a fairy tale/fable of her choice. We live in Northern KY and it was very hard to find an older looking bridge that we could actually walk onto and take pictures without fear of being ran over. This was the perfect setting. Thanks, Bridgehunter for this site!
Karen
Verona, KY
Believe it or not, it got worse. They got that restoration truss in just in time.
This the piece of metal I grabbed from the remains.
Since we are discussing it...
The lattice could support a fair amount of weight. The flat bars are will carry tension well, and there are enough of them it would be noticable. The weak point in that line of thought is the top bar, or "chord". It will be under compression and thus it's is subject to buckling. Resistance to buckling is directly related to the width. That double angle top is not wide enough to resist much buckling for a piece that long.
But let's pretend for a bit that it's built from some amazing material that is impossible to bend (ignore those bent ends) so it can't buckle. So now we have a sturdy trussed girder. But for it to be of any help, the bridge live load has to be transferred from the deck to the girder. That is the job of the floor beam. All of the weight carried by the girder gets to it via the floor beams. Those floor beams appear to be much to small to carry the bridge load.
Therefore, my opinion is the lattice is railing, much more ornimental than structural. It is positioned so it could provide some structural support, but not much.
Sort of unrelated, that lattice looks nearly identical to railing on an 1895 truss I just saw. Photos to be uploaded soon, I hope.
Folks,
Some of this may be restated, but hopefully I can simplify what the story is.
Here is a bridge with lattice "railings" that that are actually lattice "girders" and this is demonstrated by the floorbeams that are connected to the lattice. http://www.historicbridges.org/michigan/veteranshome/ In contrast, this bridge pictured here on BridgeHunter has longitudinal stringers carrying load and also the railings are not mounted in a way that they could contribute structurally. I realize there is a transverse beam running under the bridge connected to the railings however note that these are far less deep than the longitudinal stringers... not going to happen with a girder bridge. This appears to be merely a way to help hold on the railings, which were mounted on the outside of the bridge to maximize roadway width (and thus reduce cost). The design proved unreliable however since the railings are severely susceptible to damage from floods. We have (or had) many such bridges in Michigan, many with damaged railings from floods.
Although the girder I refer to is more significant, I should emphasize that lattice railing stringer bridges have become quite rare and I consider them significant and well worth posting.
The lattice structure could certainly carry some load in the vertical plane; how much requires a force analysis. The fact that image 16 shows missing diagonals and apparently a repair or assembly joint right where the center floor beam "hangs" from, would make this structure quite weak in that area. The fact that it appears to be simply bolted to the flooring away from a stringer also makes it suspect.
The lattice is a manufactured part, and it's length suggests that it was manufactured to be a part of a bridge. It could possibly have been a load bearing part of a catwalk or ship's gangway, for example. Maybe it was just manufactured to be a guardrail, though.
All parts are structural; not all parts are load bearing.
Because of the compressive forces in the top member and the diagonals and verticals providing strength in the vertical plane, failure of a truss will result in sideways buckling.
Trusses are built for strength in the vertical plane, not so much for horizontal loading. Wider, heavier members would obviously resist horizontal forces better, however.
Andrew, I should have said something about your comment on the lattice railing acting as a beam--you're very correct; heavier definitely does not mean stronger, as proven by most any truss bridge out there--built-up members with lacing, lattice, and battens provide strength with efficient use of material and lightweightness--and they look nice! If it were a structural component, the railing on this bridge could function in vertical flexure to a degree, but most likely not well enough to support the weight of the bridge itself or its intended live loads; side buckling would most likely be an issue. Similarly, if trusses are overloaded (especially pony trusses), this side-buckling usually occurs--the truss normally does not buckle in a vertical motion; it will likely "bow" sideways.
This page's URL is http://bridgehunter.com/ky/forum/