Recent Ohio Comments

Post a comment Contact webmaster

Posted October 22, 2017, by REX SHRYOCK (rshyrock [at] gmail [dot] com)

FAMILY HISTORICAL OVERVIEW: Farmland surrounding bridge was Shryock Farm from late 1880's until mid-1960's! My grandfather(Henry Rex Shryock) and grandmother (Mary Nelson Shryock) had two home births here-my father (Virgil Edwin Shryock)and uncle (Carl Nelson Shryock)! Was a working farm until 1920's but remained family property.

All family members carved their initials in the North side/ East end of bridge. Geographical/Historical Info: 1. Originally an Indian campgrounds for annual migrating area tribes. 2. From west end of bridge approx. 250 yds.was main house-some evidence of foundation may still be found. 3. From middle of bridge and due south on west side of creek-approx. 200 yds.was the animal barn;equipment shed;and maintenance shed.

4. From east end of bridge and approx.1000 yds.into NE hillside is a small coalmine that was used to heat buildings during the winter. 5. From east end of bridge and directly north 400-500 yds. was an illegal logging operation that was put out of business in early 1960's.

After a bitter land dispute between my grandfather;his sons;and stepmother(Garnet Shryock)...land left to his sons.Virgil later deeded his portion to Carl who sold out to a real estate investment co.in 1990's. 5. Was/is still included included in the Muskingham Valley Water Shed Project.

6. Approx. 6 mi.due South resided grandfather's sister (Gertrude Frye) and daughter (Viola Foley). Evidence of their home; barn;general store; and Columbiana gas well still exists! Viola was always proud to tell everyone that we were the làst of the Real Indians coming out of these hills!

Posted October 17, 2017, by Mike Tewkesbury (gb_packards [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I took this shot in March 2010.

Posted October 15, 2017, by Greg L (gleime [at] sssnet [dot] com)

I visited the tunnel today (10/15/2017). It's in good shape. Mainly dry inside the tunnel except near the entrances.

Posted October 6, 2017, by Tracy Risley (rolyatycart [at] aol [dot] com)

I got married at this bridge. It was amazing.

Posted September 15, 2017, by Lisa James (ivy76 [at] msn [dot] com)

Great pictures! I didn't know that there were memorial stones on the bridge; I'll have to go look at them. Unfortunately, the bridge is no longer open to automobile traffic (either over it or under it) for safety reasons. It is still open for foot traffic, though.

Posted September 14, 2017, by Kelvin Burgoon (kburgoon [at] columbus [dot] rr [dot] com)

This bridge was not burned, just replaced in 1967

Posted August 18, 2017, by Scott Trotel (rrhist [at] bright [dot] net)

The statements made about this bridge and cited from my book are grossly incorrect. My book makes no such statements and is taken out of context. This bridge was in the City of Troy, Ohio and was the North Market Street STREET BRIDGE. The D & T (Dayton & Troy Electric Railway) did NOT cross the Great Miami River at Troy at any time. The S T & P (Springfield, Troy & Piqua Railway) DID cross the Miami River on their own privately owned bridge to the immediate west of the STREET BRIDGE, and it is visible in the post card photo. It was opened in August 1905 and abandoned in October 1920 and subsequently removed circa 1922. It has no relationship to the August 6, 1932 collapse of the D & T bridge over the Miami River on the north side of Dayton, some 30 miles away. A photo of the two Troy bridges is attached, the North Market Street Bridge is on the left and the S T & P bridge is on the right. The photo dates circa 1919.

Posted August 8, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

The two bridge photos on this page seem different. Also, Aaron Turner sent me this photo of yet another mystery Scioto River Bridge a while back, not sure where it was.

Posted August 6, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Jim, more often than not, historic bridges are named for the landowner at the time it was constructed. A date isn't given on here but I want to say this span date to around 1878. You could go to the Brown County Library or Historical Society and look for a County atlas from around that time to confirm it. The historic society can also reference his name and see if he had any provenance in the county.

Posted August 5, 2017, by Jim (bubby1611 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Looking for info on the man that this bridge is named after? Thanks

Posted August 4, 2017, by Jim (bubby1611 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Looking for info on the man that this bridge is named after? Thanks

Posted August 2, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

All of the data on this page was for the Sulphur Heights Hill Bridge that was just South of Sidney off of Main Avenue. Although the old East Bridge was obviously built by the same company (possibly the same year and maybe even under the same contract), the other data such as length and replacement date are wrong. The East Bridge needs to have a new page created and the picture moved so that the Sulphur Heights Hill Bridge can have it's page restored. I knew it had been on this site and wondered why I couldn't find it!

Posted July 27, 2017, by Mike Tewkesbury (gb_packards [at] yahoo [dot] com )

As of July 25, 2017

Posted July 25, 2017, by William Roha (billroha [at] gmail [dot] com)

July 2014 Streetview image shows this bridge open. Unless there was another accident after the 2011 accident that seems to be the reason this bridge is listed as closed.

Posted July 21, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

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.

Posted July 21, 2017, by Will Truax (Bridgewright [at] gmail [dot] com)

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?

Posted July 18, 2017, by Ed Hollowell (erhollowell [at] aol [dot] com)

I might have been joking....

Posted July 18, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Makes sense now Ed... Not sure just what he thinks the Bridgehunter Nation can do about it though!

Posted July 17, 2017, by Ed Hollowell (erhollowell [at] aol [dot] com)

He must mean Need Stuck, one of the local river warrens who likes to do surprise boardings at this bridge and check boaters safety equipment.

Posted July 16, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Not sure what you mean here Alex... But anyway good luck with complaining to the railroad!

Posted July 16, 2017, by Alex mullen (Ron [dot] mullen [at] realalloy [dot] com)

We have need stuck on our boat 3 times in the last 2 months for over 2 hours each time. Please fix this. We plan to file complaints.

Posted July 12, 2017, by Anonymous
Posted July 12, 2017, by Douglas Butler

Is this the correct location ? one last time .

Posted July 7, 2017, by Anonymous

Muskingum County was nearly sued by the Federal Government because this bridge was too low to allow canal boat traffic to pass beneath it.

According to reports from the Corps of Engineers from the late 1800's, after the original canal was abandoned and the lock placed at the present location, boat traffic no longer had the clearance of the moveable canal bridge in the picture above and many larger boats were unable to clear the new passage underneath the main bridge.

I am fairly certain the piers from this bridge have been used in every rebuild of the bridge, including the one which still (barely) stands today.

Posted July 7, 2017, by Anonymous

The stoplight is a point of aggravation with the locals. It seems it is more put in place to artificially allow semi trucks and other heavy loads to cross the river here instead of the much worse bridge at Philo. the light causes a large string of traffic to cross the bridge at once, effectively counteracting the 'one lane' policy anyway.

This bridge receives more traffic but is the scapegoat for the upriver one.

Posted July 4, 2017, by Douglas Butler

Is this bridge the correct location?

Posted June 28, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Hello Paul,

I think one of the problems is that this isn't a 'real' covered bridge, as it looks the National Bridge Inventory identifies this as a pre-stressed concrete beam. There are quite a few of these around, and it gets kinda tricky to assign a genuine covered bridge truss type to them as they generally are more stylized and only loosely conform to the real patterns.

Generally I try to avoid assigning historic truss types to these as I feel that it might muddy the waters for others researching/visiting genuine covered bridges. For example this one up in my neck of the woods: http://bridgehunter.com/ny/essex/kissing/ has a resemblance to a Town Lattice, but since it doesn't work as one and is only decorative I think its inappropriate to pass it off as such. Instead I simply identify it as a covered plate girder, since the actual bridge is a plate girder type. Therefore on yours I would refer to that as a Covered stringer bridge, with a notation that the roof support has a truss like appearance, as it doesn't directly conform to any genuine type.

Hope that helps!

-Michael

Posted June 28, 2017, by Paul Farrier (paulfarrier [at] gmail [dot] com)

Greetings!

I'm checking the facts for website and book I am writing and this bridge is listed here as a Multiple Kingpost. However, it doesn't appear to fit the descriptions, drawings, and other photos I have of Multiple Kingpost bridges.

However, because I am not an engineer nor an expert in covered bridges, I would like any information you might have that may have as to would make this bridge a Multiple Kingpost.

You may check out my listing of the bridge at https://ohioscoveredbridgesbypaulfarrier.wordpress.com/2017/...

Warm regards,

Paul Farrier

Posted June 27, 2017, by Clover Nico Star (greydelislefan [at] gmail [dot] com)

Sigh.

Another historic bridge (and a unique one due to the 90-degree approaches on either side) gone, replaced with yet another boring cable-stayed bridge... :(

Posted June 24, 2017, by Ed Hollowell (erhollowell [at] aol [dot] com)

Over a year ago this editorial was published about the bridge. I see nothing newer. http://www.theintelligencer.net/opinion/editorials/2016/01/a...

Posted June 19, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

Nice shots Ken, thanks for making the journey!

Posted June 15, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

Appears to be replaced

Posted June 12, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

This one has some pack rust...

Posted June 12, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

Awesome James thanks for making the Journey!

Posted June 8, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

A BIG win for Licking County is saving this rare beauty!

Posted June 8, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Tom Barrett at ODOT supplied the attached photos showing that this bridge has been successfully relocated to Camp Falling Rock Boy Scout Camp. I do not have the exact coordinates of the new location. It might be in the vicinity of 40.179869, -82.301123

https://goo.gl/maps/fKvsYJf6nYG2

Posted June 7, 2017, by Paul Cramer (info [at] greatsononeviaduct [dot] org)

The Western portion of the Great Stone Viaduct was purchased in July 2015 by the Great Stone Viaduct Historical Education Society, a non-profit 501-c3 educational organization. Fundraising is ongoing to maintain and preserve the structure and create a green space, bike and walking trail, and park area at this site. The GSV Society a website at: http://www.greatstoneviaduct.org

Posted May 30, 2017, by David Case

This bridge is currently closed. Hopefully, they may rehab it sometime soon.

Posted May 24, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The sad part of it is that I wouldn't have put it past Preble County considering some of the poor judgement they have shown in recent years toward their metal trusses. I am certainly relieved to know that this iconic span is safe!

Posted May 23, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Good to know. I am glad that this one is still intact.

Posted May 23, 2017, by Nathan Holth (nathan [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

This seemed a little unbelievable to me, so I checked in with my Ohio contacts. They called Scott Brown at Ohio District 8 who provided the following information that shows not only that the bridge is still standing, but is being maintained:

"I just got off the phone with Tony McWhinney at the Preble County Engineer’s Office. The bridge in question is still standing, has not been replaced, relocated, etc. This bridge is located a little over half a mile east of Fairhaven College Corner Road.

There was another structure on Junction Road that was replaced by Preble County Engineer’s Office (located 0.17 miles west of Camden College Corner Road) back in 2011 (PID #83047). I’m not sure why the comments in Bridge Hunter were made – but perhaps those who commented were looking for the bowstring truss and came across the structure that was replaced in 2011 (i.e. were in the wrong location)?

Anyway, for what it’s worth, Preble County Engineer’s Office crews were at the truss last week, removing vegetation from around the structure that had come down during recent storms. If/when the County needs to address the existing truss, they acknowledged that they would rehab it to maintain the historic integrity, and would likely do it through a federal-aid project with ODOT oversight (since it is such a large structure)."

Posted May 22, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

What the HELL!!! The Preble County powers that be have lost their D..M minds!!!

This used to be one of my favorite county's to visit, but then they proceeded to annihilate most of their pony trusses including the rare Longman Road Bridge. They destroy another pony just to replace it with one of the ugliest replica covered bridges I have even seen... and then plan to relocate a different pony into the state park. Then they finally do a good thing in rehabilitating the Seven Mile Road Bridge... Only to botch the placement of the historic plaques so that Mr. Cross can have his name equally placed. And now this? I can only hope that it is going somewhere that it will be better appreciated... and not into a scrap furnace!

Posted May 21, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Is there a chance that this bridge might be in storage? If this bridge got scrapped, it would be one of the worst losses of a historic bridge since this website got started.

Ohio and Iowa are essentially co-champions when it comes to surviving numbers of bowstring bridges per state. Iowa has lost some of its bowstrings in recent years and I really hope that Ohio does not follow suit.

Posted May 21, 2017, by Jeff Shroyer (Shroyer100 [at] aol [dot] com)

This beauty is gone as of 6/16😑😑.

Posted May 20, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)
Posted May 12, 2017, by Don Morrison

Sad to see another cantilever lost.

The method seems more sensible than the usual BOOM/splash then drag the pieces out of the river too.

I wonder if the cantilever spans' demise will be so graceful.

Posted May 12, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

That link has some quality demolition photographs. They really illustrate how a cantilever truss functions. In other words, they show that you can remove the center span of a cantilever truss and the towers will remain standing. Likewise the center span can be removed intact as an independent span.

These photos would be good materials for teaching Cantilever Trusses 101.

Posted May 12, 2017, by Scooter (kyscooter [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This bridge is in it's last days. :(

It seems a sort of humane dis-assembly.

http://minutes.machine.market/index.php/2017/01/24/pictures-...

Posted May 10, 2017, by Douglas Butler

I need help with this one also

Posted May 9, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Good to see it finally come to fruition!

Posted May 8, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Bridge being installed in its new home:

http://www.reviewonline.com/news/local-news/2017/04/historic...

Posted May 3, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

This thing is ghastly looking on the outside... Completely unrealistic and whimsical in an unauthentic way! And why didn't they move the historic Cemetery Road Bridge that is buried in the weeds (and covered in graffiti) nearby and give it the respect it deserves. They already destroyed a Henry Hebble built span at Charleton Mill, it would be a shame to lose the Cemetery Road one as well.

Posted May 3, 2017, by Alexander D. Mitchell IV

This report says the bridge was reconstructed with both original and new parts:

http://xeniagazette.com/top-stories/8541/ballard-road-covere...

I visited by driving on Rt. 35 last month, and the bridge (which leads only to a round turnaround) was still closed to traffic with construction barricades at the north end.

Posted May 1, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

But hey... This was supposedly a bridge at risk for structural failure! NOT!!

Posted April 30, 2017, by Art S. (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)
Posted April 18, 2017, by Mike Tewkesbury (gb_packards [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Concrete Bridge abandoned when US 21 was rerouted. The owner permitted me to take photos of the bridge which is continuing to deteriorate at a rapid rate. The eastern approach ramp has broken away from the structure and I was not able to completely cross on foot. I was told that the 2004-05 flood severely exploited the structure's integrity. It was built following the 1913 flood that took out about every bridge in the county.

Posted April 10, 2017, by Jack A. Siffert (jasiffert [at] gmail [dot] com)

Bridge was in use as late as 1979 or 1981 depending on who you listen to. I saw a train west of it in 1979. The only way to use the track west of it was to go over it. Line was out way past where the train I saw was.

Posted April 3, 2017, by Matt Lohry

I would fully agree; the 1994 "rehabilitation" date is most assuredly the date that the previous bridge was replaced with this new one. Welded gussets were most likely NOT on anybody's radar back in 1924!

Posted April 3, 2017, by David Case

I am not sure that this bridge dates back to 1924. It is in a very pretty setting.

Posted April 3, 2017, by David Case

I believe this is one of the oldest surviving bridges in Wayne county.

Posted April 2, 2017, by Thomas R Engel (Thosengel [at] gmail [dot] com)

Bypassed PRR/Panhandle tunnels: about 7-8 miles East of Steubenville Dinsmore/Bertha/Tunnel #4; this was just west of Burgettstown PA. Bypassing ca. 1949 to increase clearances.

Posted March 31, 2017, by David Wormald (dwormald [at] fuse [dot] ent)

New replacement bridge for Western Hills Viaduct is a double deck cable stayed bridge. Not sure of any similar design in the US.

Posted March 28, 2017, by Sherman Cahal (shermancahal [at] gmail [dot] com)

The pond, when it was maintained, was full of water. It was probably attractive then. Not so much now.

Posted March 22, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

The Ohio Historic Bridge Inventory revealed the history of this bridge. I added the information verbatim to this bridge's page as an essay.

Posted March 22, 2017, by David Case

One has to wonder about the color selection for this bridge, but it does look good.

Posted March 21, 2017, by John Goold (BlueWilliamus [at] yahoo [dot] com)

8520 Hubbard Valley Rd, Seville, OH 44273 is the address of the property.

Posted March 21, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Location?

Posted March 21, 2017, by John Goold (BlueWilliamus [at] yahoo [dot] com)

I don't know if this bridge was moved or preserved in place but it is a good one.

Posted March 21, 2017, by David Case

This bridge isn't much to look at from the roadbed, but is very pretty underneath.

Posted March 20, 2017, by David Case

This is a neat bridge. I used to enjoy seeing it as a child traveling down I-77 in my parents car. I was fortunate to be able to visit it in person in March of 2017. I will not add photos as it is well represented here. I don't know how much longer this bridge will be around. It is not in real good structural condition.

Posted March 20, 2017, by David Case

This bridge has been replaced and is no longer with us.

Posted March 20, 2017, by David Case

This bridge is closed. An attempt was made to barricade it to all traffic, including foot traffic.

Posted March 5, 2017, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

It appears the street view is the replacement.

Posted March 1, 2017, by rick shelton (shltn [dot] rck66 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Here are some shots of this thing receiving it's steel floor post '37 flood, early 70's by-pass and subsequent inglorious finale.

Posted February 20, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Still crazy how much this resembles the Cicero Creek Bridge!

http://bridgehunter.com/in/hamilton/bh42651/

Posted February 20, 2017, by Mike Tewkesbury (gb_packards [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Although difficult, my hope is to get a few pics from the opposite side of the creek.

Posted February 19, 2017, by Nathan Holth (nathan [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Swing spans are hard to classify and in my experience 99% do not follow the textbook appearance of any common truss configurations, and in addition they may not always display forces matching a particular truss (diagonals must be in compression with a Howe, and in tension with a Pratt). My understanding of swing spans (and explanation for atypical member arrangements) is the issue is reversal of forces in the truss... because when the span is closed (bearing on the ends with wedges in place) forces are arranged in one fashion, and when the bridge is swung open, the ends must cantilever from the tower/pier.

Posted February 19, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

Nice shot Mike. Snap a few more if you get a chance!

Posted February 19, 2017, by Mike Tewkesbury (gb_packards [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This is my photo. I pass this bridge on Caywood Road on the way to my daughter's house once or twice a week. Some years ago a portion of the trestle that passed over the road was burned so that portion was removed away from the road. You can still see the burn marks on the heavy beams facing the road. The bridge now belongs to Ken Strahler and is part of the Duck Creek Farm.

Sincerely, Mike

Posted February 19, 2017, by Sean Dalton (Dsmdalton [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Bridge removed sometime in early February 2017. Replaced with a new span, still had construction dirt on it when I drove over it February 19th.

Posted February 19, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

That smaller X braced center panel over the center pier (and above the swing mechanism) certainly has a Howe look to it CV.

Posted February 18, 2017, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

Anyone else see a Howe truss on the swing span?

Posted February 15, 2017, by Ed Pohlman (elpmlp [at] aol [dot] com)

Nice Photos. Believe it or not as a child I lived right next to that bridge (Toledo side). I saw the train the day it derailed in early 1982. Spilled corn all over the place that reeked for weeks.

I also walked that bridge a couple times and when the river froze over walked under that massive center span looking up. Many years ago.

I saw on the upper tressel (sic?) a plate that said "1902" on it.

Across the street (River Rd. Toledo) between the turnpike and the tracks back in the forest was the remains of a foundation for a small station that probably was a stopover for train engineers. When that RR bridge was constructed that area was nearly all wilderness. The first homes did not appear until the 1920s.

Sorry to hear the bridge will be demolished this year. Happy to hear that Metroparks Toledo will be converting some of the land where the tracks ran into a trail for walkers and cyclists.

Posted February 14, 2017, by David Case (dcase [at] woosteroh [dot] com)

Recently visited this bridge to view the restoration job and what a pleasant surprise. It looks very nice now. Some old timbers are present in the truss. Thanks to the County Engineers for all their work here, securing the funds and seeing the job through. It is appreciated!

Posted February 12, 2017, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Tony,

I'm pretty sure its not a WIBCo. The plaque shape looks like a Smith or Toledo to me but the portal bracing looks like King. I just don't have the time research it right now (wish I did).

Regards,

Art S.

Posted February 12, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Hard to tell for sure Art.

It has a couple unique features including what appear as Fish-belly floorbeams, but with what appear to be paired nuts at the points. Also the finials appear to be straight and solid in composition. The upper portal bracing features 4 rounded brackets that give an oval appearance, with a single X-brace and likely a date plaque in the center. I have seen those date plaques used by several firms, including King and WIBCo.

Posted February 11, 2017, by Art S. (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Smith or King?

Posted February 8, 2017, by John Goold (BlueWilliamus [at] yahoo [dot] com)

That new bridge makes me want to throw up.

Posted February 8, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

As you might have noticed, covered brides can be a bit touchy here, as they tend to be prioritized over iron and steel spans for preservation (a very long discussion for elsewhere though). Even for those of us that enjoy timber truss bridges, its complicated when you get into 'fake' ones (regular bridges with a cover added), modern constructions, then historic ones, as defining whats "authentic", "historic", etc.. gets murky. A lot of people will use "authentic" and "historic" interchangeably, so I don't think any offense was meant to this bridge when its referred to as "non-authentic", but just a notation that this is not "historic".

And as to the original bridge, I'd like to look here in VT as we have a few rail-trails and thankfully a lot of effort has been put into retaining/re-using existing bridges. For example, on the LVRT:

http://bridgehunter.com/vt/lamoille/bh72557/

Even though this is a "run-of-the-mill" plate girder, it works great for the purpose that it serves now. And it contributes to the history of the rail-trail by preserving its heritage as to its original purpose. All around this bridge we have signs of the past. The railroads mile marker, excellent stone abutments, they all work together to tell the story of the past. Wipe out the bridge, and everything else doesn't mean as much.

A lot of us are here in this community because we like old bridges. Even something "run-of-the-mill" like this contributes to our collective past, which is disappearing faster then we'd like. Even if it is boring, I still find this preferable to replacement, which I think is the sentiment of many here.

Posted February 8, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Yes in 50 years I think this bridge probably will be considered historic. At that point it will probably take its rightful place in the National Register of Historic Places.

Many of us Bridgehunters have been watching historic wrought iron bridges getting turned into soup cans while covered bridges get preserved. Thus covered bridges can be a bit of a sensitive subject on here.

Posted February 8, 2017, by Sherman Cahal (shermancahal [at] gmail [dot] com)

No one was professing that the covered bridge was a historic bridge, only that it was an aesthetically pleasing covered span. For 20 miles, it's one of the highlights of the trail, considering that it goes through unremarkable territory.

Look at Ashtabula County, which has 17 covered bridges, 10 of which are pre-1983 (versus 63 total many years ago). Those ten are historic, but the remaining seven are not - for now.

What defines historic in this instance? Some are entirely new bridges on new alignments; others are re-creations. Will it be historic when they reach the 50-year mark to be included on the National Register of Historic Places? Certainly, as will the two authentic covered bridges along the Maple Highlands Rail Trail.

Going back to the original topic, the railroad bridge seemed to have been removed long ago, preceding the construction of the rail trail. The county's park district has owned it since the 1980's (acquiring it from the B&O). From their standpoint, it can be argued that the covered bridge is more aesthetically pleasing than a run-of-the-mill plate girder, even if it is old. For a trail user, that's fine. It's highly unlikely that this will ever be used as a railroad again.

We'll have to agree to disagree on our interpretation of what the county did in this instance.

Posted February 7, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Essentially, the question becomes one of engineering significance versus historical significance. A modern bridge such as this one might, and arguably does, have engineering significance. A 1938 riveted Warren Pony truss may have relatively little engineering significance, but might have a large amount of local historic significance, especially if it the last of its kind in the county or region. An 1870 Bowstring of course will have aboth high level of both engineering and historical significance.

I have no argument against construction of a modern covered bridge - except when a historic bridge must be destroyed in the process.

Posted February 6, 2017, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Its designed by Smolen... anyone familiar with Ashtabula County, Ohio would know that name. He used to be the county engineer and he liked the county's covered bridges. He later went into his own engineering. I believe they do function as trusses (the 2008-built one on CR-25/State Road that looks like a covered concrete expressway bridge is still listed on NBI as a timber truss). However, they cannot be considered historic, they are not old, nor do they have the visual appearance of an old bridge.

http://www.smolen1.com/covered-bridges

Posted February 6, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Doesn't look authentic compared to any other truly authentic historic covered bridges out there. Structurally it might well be the real deal, but it looks like something that the elves put together in their workshop.

Posted February 6, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I would agree with that. Still, it did replace a bridge that did have some historical significance with respect to the railroad line.

Rail trails provide a great opportunity to preserve history, so I hope that removal of historic railroad bridges on rail trails does not become a trend.

Posted February 6, 2017, by Anonymous

Still beats an ugly unimaginative concrete bridge

Posted February 6, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear in my comment. The bridge might be a genuine covered bridge, but I would not consider it to have any historic significance.

Posted February 6, 2017, by Sherman Cahal (shermancahal [at] gmail [dot] com)

It's not a "fake." It's a authentic and registered covered bridge.

Posted February 3, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Plate girders are usually not overly attractive, so I don't spend as much time looking at them as I do trusses, March arches, stone arches, etc.

That being said, any pre - WWII plate girder/deck plate girder has at least a little bit of historic significance. This, if a plate girder was here when the trail was being developed, I would rather see it in place than a fake covered bridge. Likewise, I would rather see a historic bridge relocated to the trail for use than see a fake covered bridge.

Covered bridges do provide shelter in a surprise rain squall though...

Posted February 3, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

That "Thing" is hideous!