A wonderful craftsman here in Danbury, N.H. has built a birdseye maple table, the support portion designed from a photo he took of this bridge. The chairs have curved portions to compliment the design. Obviously, he loved this bridge.
After you visit this bridge, be sure to visit Michigan's rail-supported railroad bridge. http://www.historicbridges.org/other/davis/
Per the 2011 inspection report the deck does get soggy and sticky during Oregon's rainy season from September to July. So make a visit in August and hope all the modern day hermits are fully dressed.
Plus, it only makes since that the hermits must be licensed in Lane County (Eugene), Oregon since they make such an effort to make them comfortable.
On that note, I guess I'm off to Eugene to inspect the fine bridges of Lane County. There is nothing like dancing with cars on the Beltline Highway to liven up ones Tuesday.
April 1, huh? Nice try. Oh, do post a map!
The truss arrangement for the Coyote Creek Bridge is the same as the 1929 - Standard 60-foot Howe Truss from the Oregon Highway Department. However, the member designs are different and no cast iron connection blocks are used on the Coyote Creek structure.
The main difference between a Howe and a multiple king post from what I understand is that the tension members at the panel points in a multiple king post are timber, while the Howe has iron/steel members. This may be an over simplification, but that is the main point I have noticed.
I believe Will is by far the most knowledgeable on this subject since he actually spends a great deal of time rehabilitating and constructing the magnificent structures.
Not sure of the origin Will...I've heard that term since I was a teenager. I couldn't tell you any details as i haven't been there in forever.
It's my understanding that the Comstock Covered Bridge in Connecticut may also be a Howe single, although it appears that if it was it has been modified. This bridge was recently restored and also has a covered pony truss approach.
Interesting Tony - I'd not come across such a variant before, or the term. What is the derivation of the named type? Do we know who coined the term and when?
No close ups of the details to tell, are the Angle Blocks wooden or cast iron?
The WG calls it a Modified Howe, though it of course is not free from errors and omissions.
We have one of these in Indiana that is referred to as a "Howe Single".
A question worthy of asking, because it is a bit hard to categorize. The asking though, (in this instance at least) perhaps raises more questions than answers.
While many if not most Wooden patent trusses are liberally peppered with iron, including large Rods, and there were simple short span “King-Rod” trusses , I know of none to have been greater than two panels. No “MKP” variants seem to have had that name appended to them. This truss type always has wooden tensile elements which define the panel points.
That said, despite Coyote Creek everywhere being described as a Howe, it lacks a number of design details common to this truss type. Foremost among these are Counter Braces – While bridge engineers and builders have long discussed and even argued the need for their presence in panels towards the end of any given span, (while yes there is little reason for them in conveying loading in end or even second panels, as a builder I would argue that their presence is useful and necessary in both developing and maintaining camber) I know of no other named example which lacks Counters in the panels at mid-span. Doubled Braces are also absent in this truss, as are Angle Blocks / Shoes at the truss terminus – Always present in Howe's, in this instance the end panel Braces appear to be heeled into the Bottom Chord in a wood to wood joint.
Howe Truss panels which lack Counter Braces, can and do appear MKP like, they are none the less part of Howe type trusses...
The Coyote is however, in my opinion, not – It is a mongrel variant, more akin to a Modified Queen than a Howe.
Nelson does not seem to speak to it in his “A Century of ” - I am uncertain if Coyote Creek is like so many others, one of the State Highway Commissions standardized designs. Being part of Oregon's 20th Century wooden bridge legacy, somewhere in the record there is likely to be some sense of what its designer named it as being in Truss Type.
Why is this bridge (and others like it) considered a Howe Truss and not a Multiple Kingpost? Thanks.
At that time that would have been how they did names. I have seen it on tombstones, in books and signed documents. It probablt gad to do with space and the handwritten beautiful script. So use both but don't just change the names.
Is it really Chas F. Loweth, or should it be Charles Frederick Loweth?
The only two other Bullen Bridge Co. bridges in Oregon that I am aware of were both originally part of the same bridge. It was the original Burnside Bridge in Portland. Attached is an article from the Oregonian about the opening of that bridge in 1894.
View attachment #1 (Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract, 119133 bytes)
Two other bridges showed up in a search for Bullen in Oregon.
You might check with Mike Goff at ODOT.
This bridge was built by my great great grandfather! The information I have is very limited coming from the Colorado State Highway Department. Do you know where I might find information of other bridges built by Bullen Bridge Company throughout the state? I know they were also in eastern Oregon. - Sharon Bullen Coxen
Nice find on that plaque, Mike. While you were out there, did you happen to get photos of any mill marks? My database is pretty low on later examples. Thanks.
Listed Clarke, Reeves, and Co and Phoenix Bridge Co are the same company. The Clarke Reeves Co turned into the Phoenix Bridge Co in 1884. This bridge was built during the Clarke, Reeves Co era.
Bridge rehab is complete: http://www.kgw.com/news/Historic-Arch-Bridge-reopens-in-Oregon-City-174135111.html
Marc, nice set of bridges! Could you identify them for me? Name, or location, or town, etc.
I don't know where you're from, but it's good to see that someone noticed our bridge maintenance and preservation efforts. There are several on-going statewide contracts and many local contracts dedicated to improving (and not replacing) existing bridges, including trusses.
A few are shown below. I have pictures of several hundred others if anyone is interested.
Oregon does have an above average preservation record for metal and concrete bridges with the exception of the Gustav Lindenthal bridge they are reducing to scrap metal in Portland. Lindenthal was just as important of an engineer as Conde McCullough his bridge deserved more than dynamite.
Sorry, should have clarified, I wasn't referring to Oregon there; it was meant to be a very general statement--a few states, such as Oregon, Indiana and Texas are making valiant strides to protect and preserve their steel bridges, but overall, most of the states, especially the northeast corner (except maybe New York) have terrible preservation records with regard to steel bridges (especially Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine). They will preserve every wood bridge they can find while trashing the rest without regard to their historic value.
Not to be a "homer" but Oregon has spent money resorting a few truss bridges in the past few decades. Don't get me wrong there is lots of work to be done in this department but it does happen. Not to mention the constant work they put into the rehabilitation and maintenance of the signature Conde McCullough era structures.
A few that come to mind are as follows...
1910 - Malheur River Bridge
New decking, rails, steel members repairs.
1913 - Van Buren Bridge
Complete rehabilitation - Many steel repairs - Lots of $$$
1926 - South Fork Nehalem River Bridge
Nearly complete rehab. Member repairs, New paint, Joint repairs, ect.
I know other states are not doing nearly enough if anything, but I feel Oregon is ahead of the curve on bridge rehabilitation and maintenance.
Right--looks like they re-used very little; you wouldn't catch them putting this kind of effort into restoring a steel truss like this. Speaking of, Robert, did you ever get that federal funding for your tool shed? :)
Well...at least they used what they could and did the rest in-kind. Looks like it turned out good!
The Chambers Covered Bridge was able to retain its historical status due to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office’s take on maintenance/rehabilitation of a covered bridge. The basic interpretation is that a covered bridge is made of materials that are prone to wearing out and can therefore be replaced during general maintenance. So they took the stance that the bridges members could be replaced so long as they were replaced in kind with the same materials and dimensions.
I do stand corrected in regards to the amount of new timbers used on the Chambers Covered Bridge rehabilitation project.
I talked with an ODOT historian about the historic status of bridge. He informed me that the bridge required 75% new timbers and not the 100% that I interpreted while quickly visiting the bridge with my 4 year old son. The rehab/reconstruction also reused all the hanger rods and cast iron connection pieces. All timbers that were replaced were replaced in kind with the original dimensions and wood type as previously mentioned
A strong effort was put in to reuse as much original material as possible though the extent of the decay hampered these efforts to a certain degree.
I corrected the spelling of Mr. Hamar's name and also added his name to the bridges he was credited with building in the article you referenced.
According to the article the spelling error is a very common mistake, since the author goes out of the way to mention it.
Thanks for the additional information,
The builder's name is correctly spelled HAMAR and his full name was Charles Otis Hamar, Jr. (1884-1962) according to the family. See http://www.ritnercreekcoveredbridge.com/history-of-ritner-creek-bridge.html
So if it has all new timbers in it then did it loose historical status?
The Moscow Covered Bridge in Indiana was rebuilt after a tornado heavily damaged it. The bridge was allowed to retain it's National Register status because it retained between 40-50% of the original materials.
I guess I'm a little surprised they didn't attempt to incorporate at least some of the original truss members into the Chambers Bridge.
The bridge has all new timbers. Though the original bridge had hand-hewn members, the reconstruction engineers did stick to sawn timber sections when rebuilding and left out the glu-lams. All of the timber is sawn to the dimensions of the old structure.
The old bridge had to be torn down before if fell down in early 2010. The rot had become so significant that there were localized failures and the bridge began leaning upstream even more than previously recorded (In 2003 the bridge was over 1-foot out of plum). A large wind storm in February of 2010 sealed the fate of the structure and an emergency replacement project was put in motion.
I don't think there was any wood that was able to be salvaged, but some of the hardware was.
Are there any original timbers remaining in this bridge now? Everything I see in the pictures appears to be new wood.
The tunnel has a clearance of 14-feet at the shoulder and 20-feet at the crown. The RV should have no problem at all.
The tunnel is on a major route to the Oregon coast and numerous RV/trucks travel through it weekly.
Your RV should have no problems. The minimum required height for a structure over a roadway in the U.S. is 15 feet. Clearances less than 15 feet are required by law to display low clearance signs, and there are no signs posted for this tunnel. Also, this is a US highway, so it would certainly have signage posted if clearances were an issue.
You left off the most important information about this tunnel.
What is the vertical clearance. I have a RV that is 13'4" tall. I would kinda like to know if it will fit.
At least the replacement will be a good looking steel deck arch.
According to the project website, the west approach has been rebuilt twice - once in 1950 and once in 1980. While the truss is not in the worst of shape, the concrete approach spans will collapse by 2015, according to the engineering firm designing the new bridge.
The deck truss will be moved and used as a detour bridge while the new steel arch is being built and will then be available for reuse.
This bridge was doomed from the beginning. The west end of the span is not anchored in bedrock, but is affixed to a huge boulder slab buried in a prehistoric landslide that is unstable and still moving, slowly, down to the river. Having driven across this bridge, I can tell you that it is also the most dangerous of the Willamette River crossings. It's barely two lanes wide - 1928 lanes, not modern lanes, with a single sidewalk barely wide enough for a skinny person to walk down. With a structural rating of only 2 out of a hundred, it's also likely to be the first one to go down in a major earthquake and it's so high above the river that nobody on the bridge when and if it goes down is likely to survive. The bridge was built on a shoestring and was involved in political corruption at the time of its construction. It might be a special bridge due to its construction and architect, but it's also a hazard to life and limb in my opinion. To be frank about it, this bridge scares me every time I drive across it.
Both pieces of this bridge have been relocated and restored as separate pedestrian spans in Prineville, near the county fairgrounds.
Jackson County is currently giving the Prospect Bridge a facelift. The bridge is being rehabilitated and widened slightly. ODOT Bridge Engineering did the engineering work and Hamilton Construction is doing the construction.
The project should be completed this fall.
I believe the bridge was constructed by the United Railways, not the Oregon Electric. Later on, a line connecting the UR line at Bowers Jct. (just west of the Holcomb Creek Trestle) with an Oregon Electric branchline in Hillsboro was constructed. At the time, the OE's mainline ran from Portland to Eugene, but Portland wanted the railroad off of its streets. The connector allowed the OE to abandon it's direct line into Portland (now occupied by I-5) and instead routed its trains on a more round-about route through Hillsboro, Bower's Jct., this trestle, and Cornelius Pass to come in to Portland from the northwest. Both United Railways and the Oregon Electric were subsidiaries of the Spokane Portland & Seattle Ry., so this arrangement kept all the traffic in the family.
The OE's branch line is now used by MAX light rail, and the Hillsboro-Bowers Jct. connector was severed something like a decade ago. Portland & Western gained control of the former OE and UR lines as well as many Southern Pacific branch lines. Trains arriving in Tigard from the Willamette Valley and points south still travel over this trestle, but they use the former SP line to go through Hillsboro to Banks, where a connection to the former United Railways line is made. The railroad sends one train (once in each direction) over the trestle 5 days per week, Tuesday-Saturday, but unfortunately, the train operates late at night.
The current connection in Banks between the UR and SP lines is a little cumbersome, and the P&W has won a ConnectOregon II grant to build a better connection just east of that town. Once construction is complete, the railroad may begin sending a second train per day over the route.
Who keeps editing this page by adding the railroad initials? I would like it to stop, please.
Great website! The links, photos and info are easy to use and so informative. Thanks so much!
My Grandfather Desiged this and other bridges in the Portland area.
Went past last week, thinking to take pictures of the new bridge and was disappointed to see the railings were just plain blank concrete walls. Don't know if they put the fake arches on the outside of the railings but I doubt it, since they can't be seen. What a disappointment. Odd thing is that at the same time this bridge was being replaced, they also replaced the Alameda viaduct here in Klamath Falls - and they used styrofoam inserts in the forms the recreate the original arched openings in the railing. They could have done the same technique on this bridge had they wanted to. Maybe I will go back and takes some pix of the new bridge but I was so disappointed I didn't stop.
Anyone have any thoughts about the origins of this bridge? I'm questioning the 1964 construction date, given that it's entirely riveted and extremely lightweight... It's also definitely not a state standard design or a Coast Bridge Co. design, which are the 2 most common sources of mystery trusses in Oregon.
The steel in the truss is marked with the "J. & L." mill mark (for Jones and Laughlin), but I don't have any other examples of this mark in the state to which I can compare it for possible dating.
Bridge work is pretty thin in Oregon. There is a lot of competition when it comes to construction bids right now.
I asked the designer of the new bridge how the schedule looked. He replied it was on schedule for completion on time. ODOT must have bumped the original construction date from 2010 to 2014.
The new structure is defiantly not going to be a looker, not that the current structure is. It is being designed for future widening with full width abutments and partial with superstructure.
Replacement schedule must behind. Estimate costs for work will be $2 - 5 million to be complete by Summer 2014. Nearly twenty bidders for this.
14 feet seems a little narrow for a 1954 bridge too.
I agree with you that this truss is a little light for a 1954 construction date. It is also different than any standard drawings I looked at for the era.
I am going to speculate that the truss was designed by the Bureau of Public Roads in the 1920's and was relocated from somewhere in Southern Oregon to Cobleigh Road.
I’ll continue looking into it and get back to you if I find anything.
This bridge seems to be unique among the Oregon trusses... Do you have any thoughts about the construction date? 1954 seems too late to me, based on the lightweight structure and tiny gussets.
I think you are spot-on here Nathan...looks like a Morison job to me as well.
I noticed no builder or engineer is associated with this bridge. The truss style, in particular the distinctive portal bracing is identical or nearly identical to a number of bridges designed by engineer George S. Morison. http://www.bridgehunter.com/category/builder/george-s-morison/
The bridge could have been saved, but officials decided to demolish a Lindenthal masterpiece. The Portland area has, in the past, been considered a major historic bridge destination. It is too bad they have seen fit to begin to tear down this heritage.
The early part of the replacement project has begun. It will be nice to have a new bridge but sad that this historic structure couldn't be saved to be used for non-motorized traffic.
James: Regarding movable types, my comments:
Abt bascules are not a subcategory of heel trunnions. "Abt trunnion bascule" would be correct. Also, to my knowledge all heel trunnions are Strauss Heel-trunnions. Not sure anyone else ever built them.
For rolling lifts, I would call them "Scherzer type rolling lift bascule" I add the word "type" to the name, because many are not directly associated with Scherzer RLBC or successors Hazelet and Erdal.
There should be a category for Strauss trunnion bascules. These are those Strauss bascules which have two trunnions, but are not heel trunnions.
There should be a category for Strauss direct-lift bridges (type of vertical lift). This category could be called more generically "direct lift" since C. L. Strobel also had a direct lift design, although I don't think any examples survive on this planet.
Swing bridges are classified with two different descriptor categories. One is the type of bearing, which you have listed (center or rim bearing). However they are also categorized by whether they are "center pier" (ie the truss is symmetrical) or bobtail, (asymmetrical, counterweighted at one end)
I'd like to expand the list of categories for movable bridges. Right now, when editing a bridge, there's a simple pulldown menu for vertical lift, bascule, swing, etc. I'm thinking of expanding the menu to include the additional sub-types below. Do I have these organized correctly? Am I missing anything?
...Fixed trunnion bascule
......Chicago-type fixed trunnion bascule
......Page fixed trunnion bascule
...Heel trunnion bascule
......Strauss heel trunnion bascule
......Abt heel trunnion bascule
......Scherzer rolling lift bascule
......Rall roller bascule
...Span drive vertical lift
...Tower drive vertical lift
Mike:Thanks for confirming the bascule type.
All: I noticed there was not a fixed trunnion bascule category on BridgeHunter even though there are rolling lift and heel trunnion categories, so I added a fixed trunnion bascule category that people can use if they know the bascule type.
Your assessment of the bascule is correct. The bridge is in fact a fixed trunnion bascule. It was designed by the Oregon State Highway Department, under McCullough.
The configuration of the bascule truss is identical to the other OSHD designed bascule bridges of the era (Isthmus Slough, Lewis & Clark River & Old Young’s Bay).
Based on photos and HAER documents, this appears to be a Chicago type fixed trunnion bascule. Anyone know any different?
After what seemed like endless rehab/electrical projects, the Siuslaw River Bridge is finally scafoldless. I was finally able to get up close and get some decent photos. This is definitely one of Conde McCullough's finest designs. Three vastly different bridge types blend into a seamless beautiful structure.
You might want to check the removal date. I believe it was removed in the mid-1980's, not 1969.
My word! You mean they actually tore down a boring I-5 concrete post and concrete beam bridge and put something that had some architectural design to it? What IS the world coming to?
This looks like an attractive modern span.
Awesome bridge! I'm adding this one to my list of must-sees.
I have read that the clearance under the main arch is seventy feet, so I seriously doubt you have to worry about getting your sail boat under the span. Of more concern is the depth of water over the bar, that's what ships have traditionally had trouble with, getting into Yaquina Bay.
The sad thing about all these beautiful McCullough bridges, especially the ones on the Oregon coast, is that it turns out that reinforced concrete doesn't do well in a marine environment. Moisture eventually worked its way into the concrete and caused the steel reinforcements to rust and expand, cracking the concrete. The railings on some of these bridges are in deplorable condition, and I hate to think that the support structures might be in a similar shocking state. I believe on some bridges, like the Alsea Bay bridge at Waldport, repairs had earlier been attempted by bolting iron straps and reinforcing plates across cracks, and when these started to rust, it made matters worse. The bridge at Waldport couldn't be saved.
I've also heard that they are taking measures to try to save bridges like the Yaquina bay bridge, and one of the methods they are using is to drill holes into the concrete and attach wires to the reinforcing rods and running electrical currents through them, which appears to retard rust. I'm no expert, but that sounds like a stopgap measure to me. It's sad to think that the very construction methods that made such beautiful bridges possible has also doomed each and every one of them. One by one, these McCullough bridges are being replaced. We had two here in Klamath County and both are now gone. If we are lucky, they are replaced with new bridges that do homage to the original design. But a lot of the coast bridges are irreplaceable and undersized for modern traffic. This does not bode well for the future...
Thank you for the additional information on Tunnel 13. I do have one point of discussion however. I would argue that this is not the second tunnel at this location, but rather the same tunnel repaired after the problems in 2004. One does not have to shine a light very far into the tunnel to realize where the rock falls were located and have since been repaired. It is not as if there is another abandoned replaced tunnel near by, The Central Oregon & Pacific just fixed what they had to, in order to open the tunnel back up.
I did not know about the additional rail alignment located to the east. That is interesting. Do you have any photos of the old bores?
This is actually the second Tunnel 13 at the site. A few years ago, the timbers under the gunite lining caught fire and the tunnel partially collapsed. It took CORP several years to rebore and reline the tunnel, and not long after they embargoed the line south of Ashland, which makes you wonder why they bothered to reopen the tunnel in the first place.
Only a few miles away are the incomplete bores for the Buck Rock tunnel, which was begun, as well as tunnel 13, by the Oregon and California railroad just before it went bankrupt. When the railroad resumed construction, the Siskiyou line was rerouted up the other side of the mountain from the original grade, and tunnel 12 was abandoned half fished, but tunnel 13 was completed. If you go looking for the Buck Rock tunnel, it's not hard to find. The north portal shows on the USGS quad map as a mine shaft, but it's not. And there is a road leading over the ridge to the south portal. There is a bit of unfinished railroad grade leading out of both portals, too.
The Siskiyou line originally would have diverted from the current route at Dollarhide Curve, and climb eastward up the side of Buck Rock, passing thru three small tunnels. We have found no trace of the lower tunnel so we suspect no work was done on it, but now that I think about it, we had been following the wrong part of the grade to find the lower tunnels. The railroad would have passed around Buck Rock and back through the ridge via the Buck Rock tunnel and climbed the ridge back to the current tunnel 13, passing through one other tunnel along the way. Since the Buck Rock tunnel is pretty well known here in Southern Oregon, and none of the other proposed tunnels are ever mentioned, I suspect they were never begun.
This is a unique little span.
I have seen some pics of full sized tied arches that existed in Ohio, but not of any ponies.
A local source states that this structure was relocated from another location within Douglas County. The span may have been part of the old Brockway Bridge over the South Umpqua River near Dillard which was replaced in 1965.
I am still working on confirming this, but it's still an interesting little bridge.
In Michigan, we combine the need for a safe and functional modern railing with the importance of retaining the original material and beauty of a historic railing by replacing railing posts, adding tube guardrail, and mounting the original historic bridge railing panels between the posts, behind the modern tube railing. See below example. This method does not reduce roadway width and the end result still looks quite nice. I do not see why this solution would not have worked here in Oregon. Looking at the design of the railing posts on this Oregon bridge, it appears it would have been extremely easy to simply fit the old railing panels between the posts.
I can understand railing needing to be up to modern day standards...but(sigh)that doesn't mean I have to like it!
Those wonderful columns look kinda lost and out of place now!
Glad to see your photos of it. When I found this bridge and saw how impressive it was I was surprised myself to find it unlisted. Based on your photos, it appears that they have not demolished the bridge, but instead have replaced the original railings. I learned about the bridge from a multi-bridge Memorandum of Agreement I dug up and so I thought it was a goner. Glad to see they apparently are keeping it.
There is one suspension bridge that I know of that is still around in Honduras.
Thanks as always for the info Mike!
Would be interesting to look into CBM's work in Central American and see if any interesting structures are to be found.
Conde McCullough was only involved with this bridge from an administrative standpoint. Along with his state bridge engineer duties McCullough also served as Assistant State Highway Engineer starting in 1932. He served in both rolls until he was choose to lead bridge design work for the Bureau of Public Road on the Pan-American Highway in Central America from late 1936 through 1937. Upon his return to Oregon he was forced to give up the roll of State Bridge Engineer in order to fulfill his duties as Assistant Highway Engineer.
It is probably safe to say the McCullough still had a limited amount influence over the bridge section, though his biographer states he was completely divorced from the bridge section upon his return. In the book Elegant Arches, Soaring Spans by Robert Hadlow it is stated the McCullough resented being “kicked upstairs” after returning from Central America, when he was not allowed to resume his bridge design work.
However, one of his duties as assistant highway engineer was to review construction plans. Therefore, the signatures of Conde McCullough as well as the successor bridge engineer Glenn S. Paxson are both on the Devils Lake Fork Bridge drawings.
Was McCullough involved in the design of this one Mike?
The Art-deco style columns on the ends look like a possible signature of his work.
Good catch on adding this one. When I seen that you added it I thought you were crazy and made a duplicate structre. However, upon further review I realized that I am crazy and have 45 photos of a bridge I never added. I will add my photos from last May soon.
That is true Nathan. In 2010 the bridge was shut-down for a project that included work on the upper lateral bracing. The first section was removed and reconfigured to allow a greater vertical clearance. The bridge also received isolation bearings and a concrete cap repairs.
Most of the repairs would go un-noticed to the untrained eye with the exception of a two-tube steel rail added along the roadway to protect pedestrians and the steel hangers.
This bridge does have a special place in my heart. Along with being an excellent Conde McCullough steel structure, it was my first fracture critical inspection after I began inspecting bridges.
I have included a photo from our inspection. It just goes proves that whenever you close a lane on a narrow bridge, the largest bulldozer in the county has to go by.
This bridge was apparently rehabbed with the overhead bracing altered. http://quincyeng.com/projects/winston-bridge/
I stopped by the bridge last week to check out the rebuild. The bridge is not quite finished, but is open to peds. The roof was not completed and some of the landscaping was yet to be finished. The new structure does rest on the old piers, and is an exact replica of the original. The city did not have to realign the road near the west abutment, they just constructed a switchback ramp to access the bridge. There is also an interesting information kiosk near the east end the offers information on the mill, railroad and the bridge. (photos coming soon)
I believe the statement that the bridge was "rebuilt at a new location" is partially in error. Although I haven't visited the rebuilt bridge yet, I believe it was built on site and moved back into the original footings. I believe the street that cut through the west approach was relocated to allow the addition of a pedestrian ramp to give access to the rebuilt bridge, but unless I am sadly mistaken the new bridge is sitting on the original abutments at the original site.
Very unique swing span!
The track curves through the draw span. Very unusual.
Thanks, Scott. Great link.
It's just south of Cottage Grove. Get off the freeway and drive into downtown Cottage Grove. Take the road south. It goes right past the bridge. It would be surprising if there aren't signs pointing the way to the bridge since it is now a city part, though it didn't used to be marked when it was in private hands. Go here for the whole story: http://www.cottagegrove.org/chambers.html
Where was the sawmill located that made a siding or branch line worth the cost of building?
Any pics of the restoration?
The reconstruction is complete and the bridge is now back in place, and is now usable as a pedestrian/bicycle bridge.
Why preserve a beautiful historic bridge when you can destroy multiple historic structures all at once instead? Demolition prep work included demolishing a historic building that was wrapped around a pier of this bridge. http://www.thebeenews.com/news/story.php?story_id=131984964497562400
I have fixed the mix-up with the railroad that built the bridge.
The description of the bridge does not include that this railroad was originally a narrow gauge railroad, and the bridge was replaced with the steel span when the line was upgraded to standard gauge.
Additionally, one commenter said the line ended at Brownsville, but this is not correct. The railroad originally started at Woodburn, proceeded south to West Stayton to Crabtree to Brownsville, Coburg and finally Springfield. Circa 1906, a flood destroyed the crossing over the South Santiam River, and the railroad line was routed to a new bridge crossing in east Lebanon.
In the mid-1980's, the Southern Pacific ceased service on the line between Coburg, Brownsville and a location called Tallman (between Lebanon and Albany), and the line was abandoned and removed. To this day, Interstate 5 rises over the former location of the line between Brownsville and Coburg.
The timber trestle approach on the north end of the bridge was replaced with a steel piling and concrete span viaduct in 2009 and 2010. At a future date, I will upload photos of the original trestle approach and the new viaduct.
This page specifies the bridge was built in 1908 by Southern Pacific Railroad. This cannot be correct as this railroad line has never been owned by Southern Pacific. This railroad line was built by the Oregon Electric Railroad, which competed with Southern Pacific for the movement of passengers and freight between Eugene, Oregon and Portland, Oregon. The Oregon Electric ceased passenger services circa 1933, and was later acquired by the Seattle, Portland & Spokane RR, which was acquired by Burlington Northern RR. BNSF still owns the line today, and has leased it to PNWR since circa 2000.
I checked out the report for the bridge and found that the reason for the poor superstructure rating is corrosion in the floor system stringers.
It does mention that repairs have been completed on most of the stringers, however some issues still remain.
I know the ODOT Bridge Preservation Unit is striving to preserve and maintain the remaining important McCullough era bridges and the Yaquina Bay Bridge is no exception. I am fairly confident that the repairs needed for this structure will be made and that the rating should rise in the near future.
Having to replace the Alsea Bay Bridge in 1991 really opened the eyes of the people of Oregon and ODOT to the value of the McCullough designed bridges. So when you get the chance to make it out to the west coast, fear not the Yaquina Bay Bridge will be waiting, unless the Cascadia Subduction Zone acts up (but that is another story).
Mike...I noticed that the 2009 Inspection gave a poor rating on the superstructure of this beauty. Do they have any plans to address this in the near future? I'm sure, like everywhere else, that money is the culprit here.
Nice photos Mike...although I still like the night ones best!
I would definitely agree with you that this one should rank high nationally in significance. You could say that for several other Conde McCullough structures as well. Having been raised on trusses, his work has been largely responsible for broadening my interest in arches...and concrete spans in general.
Hope I can make it out that way someday to see them in person.
I added a series of photos that I took while at work waiting for repairs to be completed on the bridge after a high loaded truck hit the bridge.
I took photos 13-16 during the test opening after the repairs were completed. It is quite an experience riding one of these massive movable bridges while they are in action. Photos 17-21 are looking at some of the swing components and inside the central pier.
This just proves never leave your camera at home, something amazing might happen.
The photo collection for this bridge is becoming quite large, but I couldn't resist adding the photos from my sunset walk over the deck this summer. There are some decent photos of the truss detailing and the signature concrete details of Conde McCullough.
I know some may disagree, but I believe this is the most beautiful structure in Oregon if not the country. That is for structural beauty (bridge itself) not natural beauty (natural setting).
A 380-foot timber truss is a monster. It is nice to finally see a photo of the original. Thanks again.
One other goodie I found is a photo of the covered bridge which this truss bridge replaced. Its in Popular Mechanics http://books.google.com/books?id=_B_ZAAAAMAAJ&dq=Coburg%20Railroad%20Bridge&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q&f=true