Rating:
No votes cast

Gaysport Bridge (1889)

Photo 

1908 photo

Muskingum County History

Enlarge

View this photo at facebook.com

BH Photo #516216

Description 

It appears that the simple Pratt through and pony spans survived the 1913 flood and were reused for the 1914 bridge.

Facts 

Overview
Lost Pratt through truss bridge over Muskingum River on County Road 66
Location
Gaysport, Muskingum County, Ohio
Status
Destroyed by flooding
History
Built 1889 by Smith Bridge Co.; destroyed in 1913 flood
Builder
- Smith Bridge Co. of Toledo, Ohio
Design
Combination of Pratt swing, simple through, and pony trusses
West to east:
One 5-panel Pratt pony truss spans
One Pratt through truss swing span
Three Pratt through truss spans, one of 7 panels and two of 9 panels
One 5-panel Pratt pony truss span
All spans use pinned connections
Approximate latitude, longitude
+39.80396, -81.89349   (decimal degrees)
39°48'14" N, 81°53'37" W   (degrees°minutes'seconds")
Approximate UTM coordinates
17/423513/4406380 (zone/easting/northing)
Inventory number
BH 96080 (Bridgehunter.com ID)

Update Log 

  • January 27, 2022: Added by Paul Plassman

Related Bridges 

Sources 

Comments 

Gaysport Bridge (1889)
Posted January 27, 2022, by Paul Plassman

Definitely 1889 or thereabouts then.

Gaysport Bridge (1889)
Posted January 27, 2022, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

It's definitely a Smith Product.

Not only did Toledo move on from the Lattice portals to ones with X bracing, but by 1899 the verticals on their ponies were solid and tapered.

http://bridgehunter.com/in/allen/bh76718/

Gaysport Bridge (1899)
Posted January 27, 2022, by Luke

Transliteration errors of that kind aren't uncommon...

Gaysport Bridge (1899)
Posted January 27, 2022, by Paul Plassman

Not to mention that the webbed-lattice portal design appears much more characteristic of a late-1880's Smith span than a Toledo one from the late 1890's, when the portals by then seem to have incorporated a less complex design with larger members.

Gaysport Bridge (1899)
Posted January 27, 2022, by Paul Plassman

I am somewhat skeptical of the 1899 date for this bridge as that would mean there was a ten-year gap between the destruction of the covered bridge in 1889 and its replacement. Given that the numbers 1889 and 1899 are only one digit off, I have to wonder if the 1899 date is an error.