Will Truax

George, I spent a fair amount of time in your area while engaged in a preservation project on the Bertolet Saw Mill at the Daniel Boone Homestead, (I also spent seven months just over the MD line on a bridge restoration) in that time I familiarized myself with many Berks Bridges, including this one and others that have already been PennDOT'd.

Beyond the loss of the rare example Berks County typology Lower Lats, my secondary issues with this tact are that on other bridges where both the Abutments are replaced and the bridge is steel-stringerized, the workmanship on needed repairs to the truss framing tends to be poorly executed. (Look to Pine Grove none so far to the south as an example) On top of those concerns the added costs and much higher totals of this systems replacement approach adds to the sense for many that bridge rehabs are overly expensive.

It is the more harm than good finished product that concerns me.

George, I wasn't being quite so literal.

They have been driving this approach for six decades now, That being the case I routinely transmute the agencies name into a verb as a bit of word-play in describing the steel-stringerization of wooden bridges

No they won't be "Saving as much of the original wood as possible" They will be PennDOT'ing it with their go-to Steel-Stringerization.

A needless sixty year failed experiment, (some bridges are now on their third set of steel decks & stringers) which is almost an absurdity. Ask a systems knowledgeable engineer to design rehab of a framed wooden floor system and you'll get a 10-ton rating, ask one who is not knowledgeable about such framing and they'll tell you it can't be done, and that a structural system which has carried traffic for a century and a half (this coming summer) needs to be replaced.

It's particularly sad in this instance being that there is a hyper-regional variation of interwoven Lower Lateral Bracing unique to Berks County and this rehab will eliminate yet one more of these rare examples from our shared Transportation Heritage.

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...