I'm seriously impressed that it's still standing after having lost a pier
Deck sections over the "bents" were replaced in September, 2018.
This "preserved" bridge is being DEMOLISHED!!!! Typical Virginia nonsense.
Except that this entry predates yours by 8 years.
Same as http://bridgehunter.com/va/washington/bh82542/, only with no pictures.
Tunnel is clearly defined both in engineering and common use it is not subjective because you want it to be. "Cut and cover Tunneling" is a TECHNIQUE NOT A DESIGN. The designs of "cut and cover tunnels" vary-arches, rigid frames, culverts stringers etc. I am finished with the Luke blog and bridge page. Kindly F.O.
No, the obtuse one is you, because your cherrypicking of dictionaries (And wholly ignoring engineering material that explains tunnel construction for the narrow dictionary definitions you've cherrypicked.) does not trump actual multi-nationally-recongized-and-utilized tunnel engineering/construction designs and methodologies, and the fact that you think your pedantry is a "gotcha" that trumps them really highlights your idiocy, as does your constant+repetitious reliance on irrelevant political red herrings+ad hominems.
You're neither an engineer nor a linguist, so you ought to stop pretending you are, because the more you stamp your feet and go "NO! I KNOW BETTER THAN ENGINEERS!" (Which is exactly what you're doing.), the worse you make yourself look.
"While the definition is subjective, listing the structure as a cut and cover tunnel would be a good compromise, as this design name sets it apart from a more standard bored tunnel."
No Mr. Obtuse, the definition is not subjective, hence the many sources that define tunnel the same way. "The design name"? it is called a box culvert or a steel stringer, both designs have been used for some time.
Luke how obtuse can you be. It does not fit the engineering definition of a tunnel as I posted. It does not fit the common usage definition of a tunnel. It is not a tunnel because someone calls it a tunnel. Clue in Mr. Obtuse Order follower
I posted the oxford engineering dictionary definition and the common usage dictionary. The FHWA does not accept it as a tunnel they accept the name of the technique as cut and cover tunnel and guess what gubment worker, because the gubment tells you don't make it right. I am sure as with most gubment crap it needs to be dumbed down for gubment people to understand they talking about a hole with a street in it. Steel beams on abutments are stringers MR. Obtuse
"Luke, You strike me as a true life long government order follower. At the very least someone who spent most of their life in an industry that relies on government charity to survive. There is just a mind set in these people that is so enslaved."
And with you bringing up yet-another "hurr durr gubbrmynt"-theme Red Herring/Ad Hominem Combo Fallacy, we've further confirmed that you're not arguing in good faith.
"Being correct is important in the ideas we express and what we want to communicate to others in these pages."
Yes, and "being correct" requires one to prove that they're correct, which segues into the next point
"You first cried I was anti engineering and I presented facts that engineering does not support what you said."
Except you did no such thing. You pedantically cited a dictionary, (And a Wikipedia article, which lists cut-and-cover under construction types, which doesn't end up supporting your own argument.) which is not the same thing as citing actual engineering stuff.
Meanwhile I cited several PDFs describing the actual engineering methodology behind cut-and-cover construction AND referenced local media that referred to it as cut-and-cover AND referenced historicaerials showing them constructing the trench used in said cut-and-cover construction of shallow tunnels.
tl;dr I've looked for evidence that this is actually a tunnel, found it, and provided it.
You've done nothing but sat and gone "It's not literally bored through rock so it's not a tunnel" ad nauseum (Plus some rather childish antics.).
You're right that throwing logs over a ditch doesn't make it a tunnel. But digging a 30 foot deep trench, and putting a concrete encasement over it does make it a cut and cover tunnel. The point is, while it may not be a traditional bored tunnel, it is still considered to be a tunnel.
While the FHWA has no accepted definition of a tunnel, according to the provided link, cut and cover is a tunnel construction technique. The FHWA (Federal Highway Administration, a government administration) seems to accept cut and cover style construction as tunnels. This document is very informational. Titled "Technical manual for design and construction of road tunnels-civil elements" and written by four professional civil engineers, I would believe that these people know what they are talking about. As a civil engineering student, I also believe that this would be acceptable to consider a tunnel.
While the definition is subjective, listing the structure as a cut and cover tunnel would be a good compromise, as this design name sets it apart from a more standard bored tunnel.
Luke, You strike me as a true life long government order follower. At the very least someone who spent most of their life in an industry that relies on government charity to survive. There is just a mind set in these people that is so enslaved.
Being correct is important in the ideas we express and what we want to communicate to others in these pages. You first cried I was some sort of anti engineering and I presented facts that engineering does not support what you said. the vast, vast majority of definitions for tunnel, including engineering definitions do not support your inaccurate assessment and still you argue (order follower mentality). You attack being accurate and correct on the pages?
Your links do not provide a definition of a tunnel.
This quote covers the basics of your links.
" The contents do not
necessarily reflect policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government
does not endorse products or manufacturers. "
Again, digging a ditch and throwing logs over it does not a tunnel make.
Calling it Almond milk does not make it Milk, no matter who calls it Almond milk or how many. There are generally agreed upon definitions for things, including tunnels, cut and cover does not fulfill the definition of a tunnel in any commonly associated definition of tunnel.
1) People can't view the scripts page, but woweee here's all the NBI entries that refer to the structure as a tunnel (See image)
2) Again, being pedantic and only using your narrow definition of tunnel is idiotic
3) Look, I can cite things too:
And they're all engineering pdfs that describe the cut-and-cover tunneling method in some form or another (Including a whole chapter from the FHWA.).
Perhaps you should READ THEM instead of yet-again spouting your inane pedantic/pseudointellectual personal opinions as if they're engineering factualities.
4) So to finish it off:
If you look at the location on historicaerials, you can see the area under construction from 1979-1982
You can see that they've dug DOWN to build the trench used in cut-and-cover tunnel construction.
A LOT of groups, from governmental to locals to engineering call this a tunnel.
There's more evidence supporting it being a tunnel than not.
You're a pedant, and annoyingly pseudointellectual one at that.
To finish off the conversation,
The FHWA has no accepted definition of a tunnel, (call what ever you like a tunnel), the AASHTO does not have an accepted definition of tunnel, only what defines weather it is a short or long tunnel.
The NFPA defines a tunnel as an "underground" structure longer than 75 feet
on and on and on
It is a tunnel now
North Nash Street-Stringer-http://bridgehunter.com/scripts/bridge/add-nbi.cgi?fips=51013;id=000000000000069;v=2017;from=54502
Fort Meyer Drive-Stringer-http://bridgehunter.com/scripts/bridge/add-nbi.cgi?fips=51013;id=000000000000071;v=2017;from=54502
North Lynn Street-Stringer-http://bridgehunter.com/scripts/bridge/add-nbi.cgi?fips=51013;id=000000000000073;v=2017;from=54502
All draw bridges in front of castles are now tunnels when down.
Cut and Cover the Almond milk of engineering.
Not accessible to public, restricted access on Fort Belvoir
Hopefully the tunnels don't catch on fire as easily as his cars :')
Tunnel is so last century. I vote that we start calling them "bores" since Elon's Boring Company now makes tunnels.
They also sell flamethrowers, so we could call this a flame war. Lol
1) All 5 of the NBI entries refer to it as a tunnel (As does everyone from the federal, state, and local governments to news outlets to highway fanatics.), and as I already stated, stringer is the typical roof construction method for cut-and-cover tunnels, but I guess paying attention is hard.
2) This tunnel passes under a park built upon the backfill used to bury the it.
3) And now you're being willfully obtuse and willfully ignoring the actual engineering/design differences between cut-and-cover tunnels and overpasses.
Literalism and pedantry don't trump actual engineering.
I thought tubes were tubes and stringers were stringers.
I suppose you could make an argument for the tubes as they are actually under something. This "tunnel" is not under anything, a pretty standard definition of tunnel. Otherwise do we start adding all the wide stringers as tunnels, cities are full of them, not to mention NBI (the gospel) lists it as stringers. And yea, the common and reasonable definition of something is generally best used, don't you think?
You can ignore engineering techniques for your own personal opinion all you Like, it doesn't mean you're in the right.
Cut-and-cover (Which are typically stringer-roofed trenches.), along with immersed tubes (Used frequently in your home state, Royce.) are forms of tunnel construction, despite not being litetally tunneled through rock.
Ignoring this for a literalist view is extremely idiotic.
Seems if it wasn't tunneled it is not a tunnel, hence the word tunnel. NBI has it listed as steel stringers
I've found several references to this being a "cut-and-cover" tunnel project , which is how most tunnels are built nowadays, especially when being built in already-built-up metropolitan areas
Citing sites that refer to it as cut-and-cover:
Let's all be like Elsa. Let it go. Let it go.
"even VDOT calls it a tunnel" LOL, well if the government says so it must be true.
Funny, because even VADOT calls it a tunnel
This is not a tunnel
I think the bridge and tunnel should be two separate entries.
Alright so, after being restored and repaired in Florida, the bridge is apparently going to be reinstalled near its original location, so far presumed to be for vehicle traffic once more. I don't know how much historical integrity had to be compromised for its repair since it was claimed there was major damage that had to be repaired, but it has been repaired and is scheduled to be reinstalled sometime next year probably. A far better fate than many old rail-crossing road bridges.
I worked on this bridge for a short time as a field engineer with American Bridge Company in 1963...Mack Oliver was the job superintendent
According to my Grandpa, who was in his 20s when the BRP was being constructed, this bridge was built by Italian stonemasons. He was courting my Grandma at the time and they were boarding at the Webb home. Grandpa worked on the Round Meadow Bridge just south of this one.
This is a duplicate of http://bridgehunter.com/va/chesapeake-city/dismal-swamp-cana...
The bridge is visible in this film made on 20 Sep 1944:
Timestamped version: https://youtu.be/WjadMxpXprk?t=2m
Most of this truss bridge collapsed in an accident Feb 24, 1977 which may explain why many members are bolted since I assume most of the truss is a replica. http://www.dailypress.com/features/history/dp-look-back-acci...
This is one of the more spectacular vertical lift accidents I have ever seen. The freightor crashed into the approach truss, which rested on on the freighter for a time (it was dislocated off the pier onto the ship) before the tower finally collapsed, which in turn dragged the lift span into the water. The other tower survived however.
predecessor to this........
Kyle, do you live near this bridge? I am curious if you have or could take a photo of the plaque visible in the photo, its located on the center span girder, far end. It would likely tell us who built the bridge.
Closed to thru traffic March 2018
For better or worse the City of Hampton is in the process of replacing this bridge - new bridge isn't open as of March 2018
The photo is of the Hardware river bridge at Route 6, that was replaced a few years ago by a more modern bridge.
I'm doing research on the Coleman bridge and the surrounding area.
I'm researching the History of the Coleman bridge built from 1950-1952 in West Point Virginia. What i'm looking for is a list of employees that were working on that project if possible. Carpenters, foremen,engineers, concrete workers, steel workers etc. I'm aware of personnel confidentiality policies but i think enough time has passed and most of these people have passed away that it shouldn't be a issue but more of what i'm looking for, Historical documentation only. Thank you for any help you may lend to my project. Thomas Cooke 307 S. Lubec, Rd. Lubec, Maine 04652 207-733-4247
Thanks luke.There are composite metals that are used in all kinds of applications.I forgot about wood and metal as in bridges.
Dana is correct. When trusses are referred to as "combination" or "composite", they're referring to the mixed use of timber and metal parts.
You have a good point there,Dana and Kay.Didn't look at it that way.Thanks.
Believe it may refer defer to composite of wood and metal probably Iron. Will defer to more knowledgeable pontists for definitive answer.
I have a question.I see the word composite used in the pictures of this bridge.I've dealt with composite metals in the past.Is this bridge made out of composite materials?From what I remember composite metals are more than one metal.
It seems like this railroad built multiple wooden truss bridges- there is another that is abandoned farther down the line. Who knows, there may have been even more than these two! https://bridgehunter.com/va/cumberland/cartersville/
Is this a rare wooden railroad truss? It certainly seems to to me!
Those stone arch approaches must be far older than 1932. 1882 is a lot closer to the appropriate date.
I would consider this worthy of being here. Itís the internet, not a book. I guess Iíve never seen a reason why any bridge falling into a historical category would be unworthy. Yes, it clutters the site but in reality,
It only slows down searching by a couple of seconds.
I didn't post because I didn't consider it worthy of being here. I read your listing as an implication that this is the remains of a bridge. Whereas I see it as complete as is. Hence the enquiry.
NBI calls it a through arch but street view differs.
Yes, a siding, and yes, it's a bridge. A beautiful old monster--pure functionality.
Need help identifying the rail yard here. was just south of the current Richmond NS south Yard. Was still in existence in 1969.
I am unsure. I added it because it bridged a couple of roads. Do you think I should remove it?
Was this a bridge or has it always been an elevated siding?
Historicaerials confirms there was a Seaboard track below at one point.
I did not see a current RR either. NBI gives it as crossing a yard and since Main Street station and trainshed is half a block away, I assumed at some point there must have been a spur.
In the last photo, looks like the bridge was built between 1900 and 1910 by American Bridge Company.
This page is a duplicate of http://bridgehunter.com/va/cumberland/5741/
It looks like this bridge is no longer operating.
It looks like this bridge is no longer operating.
L3v3l one is ground level. The other crossing levels are above it.
This bridge no longer operates, but the original bridge is now shown as a pedestrian bridge.
What clueless person let that number become official?
Being as it's on Route 666, you'll likely burn in HELL if you cross it!
Topos as far back as 1950 have the current Norfolk & Western alignment, but back in 1892 this was the original railroad.
The narrowness suggests RR to me.
Is it possible this was an old rail bridge? The span looks pretty light but the abutments scream Railroad? Any RR guru have old track line maps around here?
Hello, just wondering if anyone knows the height of this bridge as its crosses the river.
Well, never mind the rehab and reopening... as of late last year VDOT claimed that the restoration work needed was far more extensive than thought, so it appears by photos that they thew up a new concrete eyesore in its place. The historic bridge is supposed to have been preserved elsewhere but I can't find an article that confirms if this actually happened.
Can anyone build this today.
It said on the future projects of this drawbridge, the original bridge will be relocated.
This drawbridge is newer than the previous swing now long gone. This must be the only drawbridge in the Delmarva Peninsula version of Virginia.
This rare taper vertical pony truss has been reduced to scrap metal.
Suggested correction: Williams Viaduct connected at 7th Street.
FYI... the bridge it replaced connected at 9th Street. The bridge that replaced the Williams Viaduct connects at 5th Street.
Trusses look good, underneath (Pics 30-33)... Not so much.
Looks like heavy salt damage to me.
Nobody Lakes like Gaston
I am the Great Great Granddaughter of the Doyle who built the Twin-Big Tunnels,as well as the Great Granddaughter of John Wesley Doyle who was the first Engineer through the tunnels.
I am requesting more information as to how to see these tunnels first hand and any historical information about the tunnels.
Other visitors information about food, lodging, and other points of interest would be helpful as well.
Thank You for your help.
Debbie Jo Doyle Mason
Still open for regular traffic with plans of new bridge constructed in 2019
What a darn shame this couldn't have been preserved as it was a really neat looking multi- span historical bridge. We have lost far too many of these.
Visited the bridge on April 4, 2017. Nicely viewed from the suspended pedestrian walk-bridge under the modern Robert E. Lee bridge. Multiple abandoned piers, a couple of which have foundations that are damaged and being undermined and will eventually crumble. Only one span still standing adjacent to Belle Island shore. No decking on bridge.
Nice photos. The only one I got was part of a train coming out of it 20 some odd years ago.
This bridge has started to fall. I took this photo sometime around October 2016.
Bridge has been demolished for a replacement as of November 2016
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.
This was a replacement with a modern truss... Not a rehabilitation, unfortunately!
It's not a Howe truss. Sort of a Kingpost pony hybrid... AKA "Mongrel" of some kind.
Looking at the foundations and the low trusses, I'm almost certain that this is the bridge that was blown down in the windstorm. And really it appears that only the "Lid"... siding and roof were blown off of the trusses. While there has been some damage to them the trusses appear to be mostly intact. I believe the other Sinking Creek spans have vertical beams that extend up to the roofline, while this one does not. The siding and roof on this bridge likely were not original, and not historic. If they get the right engineer and contractor (Will?) I believe it can be restored.
The curved piers are original to the 1888 N&W bridge. The V&T bridge was the original bridge on the current NS bridge. I have corrected the posting.
Were these piers reused for the successor bridge? Was the original bridge, which was burned, also curved?
I would call them outriggers.
Is the bracing here note worthy, I do not believe I have seen this before. Is it acting as an outrigger or a vertical? Or both?
I am guessing this bridge was not built in 1932. Probably the original bridge here was built in 1932. This looks to be a welded MOB.