Will Truax

Literally, up from the ashes! http://youtu.be/dbn8ZhP7UGA?a

And the WW&F is still working to raise abutment money https://fundrazr.com/NarrowBridgeAhead?ref=ab_5GWwLW8Nen95GW...

Source material which cites the Permanant Bridge as being "Remodelled" in 1850

Proceedings of the Engineers' Club of Philadelphia, Volume 34 Published in 1917

http://tiny.cc/ivu3oy

I shared Palmer's own words on the permanence of impermanence in this blog entry - https://bridgewright.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/at-the-beginni...

And this bridge was not lost to fire, it was removed for the rise of its arches being inappropriate for the railway its replacement would share with highway traffic.

Royce -

While the pilings in Bent Piling Bridges are now more commonly constructed with concrete, treated timber as you likely know, was the material of choice for railroads for many many decades. The following link is one railroads specs for construction details for such Bent Piling Piers - http://www.victorianrailways.net/infastuct/aa_fseries/f270.j...

I only threw it out there as a possible design category in that I found nothing under piling or trestle, or anything else that seemed to fit this type on the existing list of categories.

-- Will

There seems to be no appropriate design category for it here...

Is it not a Bent Piling Bridge?

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?

Hadn't realized anyone had added this here.

Some may have interest in these followups -

https://bridgewright.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/less-than-hard...

https://bridgewright.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/bastard-childs...

Though greatly diminished in numbers, these were quite common in mill complexes here in New England.

As far as a going name for this category of sky-bridge, The National Park Service (my current employer) refers to them as "Industrial Bridges" as can be seen in this technical bulletin.

https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/it...

Closed after an inspection Friday, though it is said the recommendation is for repair.

http://www.bannergraphic.com/story/2395290.html

Thought I'd nailed down which was which with portal details...

You're right, the right PE and "contractor" are key. I've a friend I've done some preservation work with in the Roanoke area, he's done some structural work on one of the Woolwine examples, I'll make sure he's aware of this development.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-modjeski-bridges-getti...

Is this list complete?

http://bridgehunter.com/category/builder/ralph-modjeski/

More background and speculation here >

https://bridgewright.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/long-lost-thou...

The end is nigh > http://www.observer-reporter.com/20160714/south_central_brid...

Excepting the Wooden / Iron "Combination" trusses.

I agree completely.

Even the hundreds of primary reports filed from that bridge do not make it historic.

Sadly, it is almost as if the remaining Storrs spans have been targeted for removal.