Photo taken 2005 by Gregory S. Hamilton
BH Photo #108335
Repainted brown / bronze, sharp!
Play video on YouTube
Do you have any more detail on Jim's input?
Jim Cooper had mentioned before about research finding trusses were often painted with bright, primary colors.
I think it took three, being as polite as possible, when confronted with amazing denseness, to get me to read the plaque correctly :^)
I've been doing homework on paint. The significant iron bridges of the 1850s to the 1870s were quite colorful, similar to period train engines. I know one of the B&O finks was, at least, tri-color. By sometime in the 1870s they were monochrome but still bright. I believe white was used so issues would be easy to spot. I know red was in use but its hard to tell what the actual color palate was from black & white photos.
Regards to both,
Yes Art... We had quite the tussle back then over the Columbia/Columbus debacle!😜
I really like the new paint scheme. The White might stand out a little more, but it just tends to get dingy looking after a few years. I'm delighted to see them taking good care of it!
Interesting observation about the finials. Paint color is not a character-defining feature of a historic bridge so I have always felt that paint color should be a decision that is made based on whatever is suited to the bridge and its setting. I also liked the white color a lot better. Black bridges are very hard to photograph and the details are difficult to see.
It was fun taking a second look at this one and my comments relatively early in my enthusiasm for CBW. Funny to see that I was as nuts then as I am now.
I finally found the video of this bridge that I had seen previously (uploaded the link). I like the new color, assuming its a bronzish brown, not black but made to look brown by the evening sun.
Also, I may have solved a minor thing that has been bugging me. The ball finials are of an earlier style and don't have the mid-line 'frill' of St. Clair St. or Carlton.
In looking at the pre-move pics on Nathan's site, the finials appear to be missing. I suspect that the ones on the bridge now may be replicas based on an earlier bridge or originals salvaged from a previously lost earlier original.
If you hit me over the head enough times, I may eventually get it...
Thanks for bearing with me.
We understand what you're saying, and we agree 100%. Take a look at the new plaque in pic #5, NOT #4--this is the plaque I'm referring to...they spelled "COUMBUS"...it's supposed to be "COLUMBIA". That's the issue here.
Upon David Morison's (the founder of Columbia Bridge Works) death in 1882, the company was passed to his sons and renamed Columbia Bridge Co. The factory continued to operate in Dayton, Ohio. The plaques in picture 4 say: (upper) "Columbia Bridge Works Dayton O" (lower) "The Columbia Bridge Co., Successors to D.H. & C.C. Morrison".
In other words, any Columbia Bridge Works bridge made after 1882, while labeled as Columbia Bridge Works and to the same designs and style, made in the same factory (upper plaque, seen in picture 4) was technically built by the Columbia Bridge Co. (lower plaque).
The plaque that Matt was referring to is the one in pic #5 that was placed on the railing after the bridge was moved from Mercer County. The builder is incorrectly identified as the Columbus Bridge Company of Dayton.
Unfortunately I see this happen all the time on these modern plaques as hearsay information is not verified. In this case it was a simple act of carelessness as the builder is clearly identified on the historic plaques.
Look carefully at picture 4 and read the transcription to it's right.
It must be an Ohio thing then... cause we don't narrow them here in Indiana.
Art, Matt is speaking of the new plaque that was placed after the bridge was relocated. It is incorrect in that it states "Columbus Bridge Company", which was a completely different firm that operated out of the state capitol.
It has to do with the 85 per sq. Ft that pedestrian loading requires. Our engineer has figured out loading that works to prevent the skunny. Its not a non sensical law...it is engineers that aren't willing to look a little further or use tge lowest numbers possible in their modeling because they dont know.
There are ways....
I have recently learned that "Columbia Bridge Works" became "Columbia Bridge Co." with the death of its founder David H. Morrison in 1882 but continued using the "Columbia Bridge Works" sign - look at picture 4 above and it is explained.
It's still the same company and the same product so the category should not be subdivided here but it does explain why the plaque is correct.
My understanding is that there is some nonsensical law that requires this. I don't know if the rule/law is tied to money or liability but I agree with you that it is silly.
I just wish they wouldn't narrow these trusses when they convert them to pedestrian use. It's like the bridge width has to match that of the trail, when in reality a wider and more historically accurate span is more appealing.
The folks who put the plaque on the railing need to fix the builder name--they put "Columbus Bridge Company" rather than "Columbia Bridge Works" on it.
Here are some shots of the Gallman Road Bridge from 18 February 2012