My only regret is that it took me so long to realize how much I loved bridges.
It seems like a lot of folks on here had their realization early on in life that they had an affinity for the subtle beauty of bridges. Me? Not so much. I always had a fascination with bridges growing up, primarily covered bridges. However it was merely a passing interest in their historical nature, concepts like differing truss styles never even occurring to me. I would always go out of my way to see covered bridges however, and it was a daily delight that my daily commute to college required crossing a covered bridge
During my college years for my photography course I did a segment on bridges, cataloging what are now to me gems, such as Vermont’s longest Paddleford Truss covered bridge, the Sanborn Bridge in Lyndonville, VT. Again though, my interest was primarily in the bridges historical nature and all the details of the bridge otherwise being lost on me.
Then one day in the summer of 2013 everything changed.
I was driving in northeastern Vermont, just cruising about. On the Vermont roadmap there was a historical marker in Highgate falls for a “parabolic bridge”. I was close by, and I was curious what a parabolic bridge was, so we made course for the small town. My minds eye determined that this “parabolic” bridge was some modern creation, as a shape like that is never something I would expect to be old.
While driving along I spotted an old bypassed metal bridge, and decided to stop. As I approached the bridge it dawned on me that it was unlike any old metal bridge I had ever seen, as it wasn’t trapezoidal like all the other bridges I was used to. It then dawned on me, admiring the distinctive upper and lower chords, that this was the parabolic bridge that I was searching for. As I began to cross the bridge I looked up at the Berlin Iron Bridge Co. builders plaque, I was stopped by the build date: 1887
How could such an beautiful, gracefully elegant, and complicated bridge have been built in 1887? It didn’t make any sense to me at the time (Mind you I grew up in Vermont, where covered bridges continued to be constructed well into the early 1900’s, so I had no experience with early iron bridges). I became obsessed with this bridge, slowly learning the distinctions of the truss type, concepts such as pin-connected versus riveted, and terms such as “hangers” and “chords”.
Since then my life hasn't been the same. As I learned of the lenticular truss I had to learn about other trusses (as the lenticular truss can employ either Pratt or Warren webbing), and my interest branched out to the truss bridges. I now enjoy investigating and cataloging all types of truss bridges, metal or wooden with a mostly equal level, with a continued special interest in the lenticular truss.
Happy bridge hunting!
Grantville Road BridgeGrantville Road Bridge (St. Lawrence County, New York)
Old Elm Ridge Road BridgeOld Elm Ridge Road Bridge (Jefferson County, New York)
Janice Peaslee BridgeJanice Peaslee Bridge (Coos County, New Hampshire)
South Washington Street Parabolic BridgeSouth Washington Street Parabolic Bridge (Broome County, New York)
Kinderhook Creek BridgeKinderhook Creek Bridge (Columbia County, New York)
Water Street BridgeWater Street Bridge (Cortland County, New York)
Bardwell's Ferry BridgeBardwell's Ferry Bridge (Franklin County, Massachusetts)
Keeseville Suspension BridgeKeeseville Suspension Bridge (Essex County, New York)
Pineground BridgePineground Bridge (Merrimack County, New Hampshire)
Yaleville Road BridgeYaleville Road Bridge (St. Lawrence County, New York)
Livermore Falls BridgeLivermore Falls Bridge (Grafton County, New Hampshire)
Delage Farm Road BridgeIron Furnace Bridge (Grafton County, New Hampshire)
Aiken Street BridgeAiken Street Bridge (Middlesex County, Massachusetts)
Well I'll be! I'd be curious if it was still lurking there since the entire segment of road was abandoned. Next time I make it down to Rockingham County I'll make sure to check up on it.
I concur Royce, I can't find anything to line this up with either. I'd opt for junking the entry.
In my travels I've found quite a few Pin-connected railroad bridges where the first panel or two of the bottom chord is a built up compression member, so it was likely an original feature. I always figured it was due to the heavier/faster rolling stock that was expected where the last panels needed to handle compression forces. I've yet to see a highway bridge with this arrangement.
Townsfolk got their options for what kind of boring prefabricated bridge they want to replace the historic bridge...Looks like they want an arch bridge:
Missing is option #9 to recognize the historic value of this bridge and to rehabilitate and preserve it.
Julie, you can count me in for any projects up here in New England! I can think of quite a few gems that need restoration/preservation up here, and I'd be happy to team up to make sure we don't loose 'em!
This was a fascinating bridge to visit, as this had signs of quite a interesting past. Originally built as a 2 span bridge, when its central pier was washed out in the 1890s it had a arch added and became a single span. It looks like they also rebuilt the truss to make this work, as the compression members in the middle of the bridge were turned around so they would appropriately transfer the load as a single span, instead of being its designed 2 span. When the arch was deleted and the pier re-added in the 50's they re-corrected the compression members, restoring it to a 2 span orientation. You can see signs of this in photos 45, 46, and 47, where empty slots indicate that the diagonal compression members in the middle panels were previously oriented in the opposite direction.
Or people could, you know, stop posting copyrighted images? That would be a win-win for stopping the debate and keeping us out of trouble
Right on the main page it says that it isn't a search engine and that you shouldn't assume that the returned images are under a CC license. I don't think its a good idea, given that the nature of this discussion is to AVOID copyright infringement, to tout it as "100% copyright-free photos"
How was it 'sourced' and 'licensed'? Who did you get consent from? There were two different sources for the pictures you used.
If you actually bothered to read the article from the newsite that you stole these pictures from you'd have realized that this is not the Slick Bridge, but the Mores Creek Bridge.
A couple of problems here:
This is not a Pratt truss. This is a concrete stringer bridge with a wooden cover added. The internal truss is patterned on a Multiple Kingspost system, but that is merely for decoration. The previous bridge lost in Irene was the same deal, being a 1930's steel stringer with a faux wooden cover added in 1970.
There was mention of having a height and weight restriction? The National Bridge Inventory says that this bridge is open with no restrictions, and there is no signage around this bridge indicating one. The previous one did, but not this one.
Violating copyrights isn't just a 'big deal' to the Historic Bridges team, you'll find most of this community here at Bridge Hunter sensitive to it as well. Finding your work on a different site without permission is incredibly frustrating, especially given the time and money we expend traveling and documenting these bridges.
And what "image repository" site are you referring to/using? I have only found Nathans pictures of this bridge hosted by his own website in my search, so I'm curious as to where these are illegally re-posted.
#1 was taken from the bridge company's webpage itself:
#3 was taken from someones blog
Image number 1 was taken from the American Engineering Website:
Image number 2 was taken from the Virginian-Pilot website.
protip: re-posting pictures as yours that you find in a Google search is NOT ok
Its a pretty mixed bag, with both variations in policy depending on what state you are in and what time it was done and the location/traffic of the bridge. For example in the 60's and early 70's it was very common in my home state of Vermont to add steel supports or even remove the entire bottom of the bridge and replace it with and independent steel and concrete bridge, retaining the authentic cover. At the time this was seen as progressive, but by the late 70's and 80's the sentiment moved more towards in-kind restoration and preservation. Today we have a comprehensive policy towards rehabilitation and maintenance of covered bridges that keeps them working as their original framers intended.
Cross over the Connecticut river into New Hampshire and there are only a handful of covered bridges with steel supports. Most of them were modified way back in the early 1900's with the addition of large laminated wooden arches. These modifications are old enough to be historic in their own right, and look more 'natural' then steel supports. Fortunately these arches strengthened them sufficiently to survive without further modification.
Certainly though it can be said that more covered bridges have been modified then any of us would like to see. I feel like there has been an increase in awareness for historic integrity of covered bridges though, so hopefully we won't see more of these modifications in the future.