Photo taken June 2005 by Jack Schmidt
BH Photo #108143
Will, I read about this bridge many years ago and if I remember correctly it was originally built as a single-span Long truss. The contractors, I'll just call them BB&B, were summonsed back several times to make repairs. I believe they added the pier first and then added bracing that was supposed to "help" the structure settle onto the pier properly. I assume those bracing are what gives it a Childs appearance.
I would not categorize this truss as a Childs, it is a Long variant.
Though it curiously has the Double Posts in Childs' patent (Unlike the Sherman variant "Childs" Trusses) There are the Counter Braces ala Long and the Braces join the posts in Long fashion as opposed to Childs - And more importantly the Truss Rods are configured opposite of how a Childs conveys loads from panel to panel, they would be ascending not descending.
I suspect the rods were either added post build or were used in lieu of the pre-tensioning wedges in the Long patent.
I've visited the Sherman variants, but not this bridge and am somewhat reluctant to edit the page based solely on photographs. At the same time I think it a bit silly to miscategorize the bridge simply because the Historic marker was written based on assumption over research.
Does anyone who has visited have better shots, or an opinion as to type?