Recent Virginia Comments

Post a comment Contact webmaster

Posted October 6, 2019, by Buddy French (budm44 [at] outlook [dot] com)

The Allegheny/Merrimac Tunnel in Montgomery County was open and in use by 1908. The 1914 date on the tunnel represents the year the tunnel was concreted. In May 1913 a contract was awarded the Boxley & Company for concreting the Allegheny Tunnel at a cost of $250,000 and would take eighteen months to complete by November 1914.

Also, construction had begun in October 1913 on a ventilating plant to remove smoke from the tunnel.

Posted September 30, 2019, by Buddy French (budm44 [at] outlook [dot] com)

I noticed that the Merrimac/Allegheny railroad Tunnel between Christiansburg and Blacksburg is listed as being built in 1914 and that is what's on the eastern tunnel entrance. I have a Bluefield Daily Telegraph newspaper article dated April 21, 1906 stating that the tunnel construction was well under way by the Tidewater Railway Company. The Deepwater Railway Company and the Tidewater Railway Companies were joined in 1907 to form the Virginian Railway Company and the new Virginian rail line between West Virginia and Norfolk opened in January 1909. So I would have to assume that the Merrimac Tunnel was opened and in service long before 1914. Is it possible that the 1914 date on the eastern entrance to the Merrimac tunnel indicates that was the year when the tunnel entrance faÁade was done?

Posted August 31, 2019, by Avis Ransom (avisransom [at] aol [dot] com)

As of August 2019 this bridge is closed hopefully for repair or replacement and reopening. Many residents in the area who could reach 460 in a mile or two must now travel to Burkeville, 5-6 miles away to do so.

Posted August 13, 2019, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Yes I agree strongly. Especially considering its similar to the state standard design used in the 1930s, see this similar example from 1934: https://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=v...

Posted August 13, 2019, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

It looks older than 1963.

Posted August 12, 2019, by justsayin

Ö..another one 1960's

Posted August 12, 2019, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

I could not find this bridge already listed? If I missed it and this is a duplicate let me know. Its imminently doomed. https://www.thefranklinnewspost.com/news/local/new-hardy-for...

Posted August 11, 2019, by Bill Brown (williambrown219 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I would agree that this may be where the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad crossed Elk Creek. Having looked at many maps I believe the entire length of Elkton Farm Road was the old rail bed. I have found large chunks of coal in the ditches up and down the road. Additionally, I have found lots of foundry slag in these ditches as well. I believe this may have been used as a ballast for the bed.

Posted July 29, 2019, by Stephen Peifer (sfpeifer [at] gmail [dot] com)

Photo of damaged bridge during repair by Virginia Bridge Company in 1939. Photo by F. J. Peifer, field engineer.

Posted July 29, 2019, by Stephen Peifer (sfpeifer [at] gmail [dot] com)

Photo made during bridge repair in 1939 by Virginia Bridge Company. Photo by F.J. Peifer, field engineer (my father).

Posted July 18, 2019, by Jason Brown (jabrown [at] cityofchesapeake [dot] net)

The Centerville Turnpike Bridge will close to traffic on Aug. 24, 2019 for a period of six months to accommodate a major rehabilitation project, primarily to replace the pivot pier mechanism. The bridge is expected to reopen to traffic in February 2020. Additionally, the City of Chesapeake is beginning a feasibility study to explore options for replacing the current bridge with a new, likely fixed span bridge.

Posted June 28, 2019, by Geoff Hubbs (geoffrey [dot] hubbs [at] att [dot] net)

This bridge is also listed (with photos) as Potomac River Bridge (US Route 15)

Posted June 26, 2019, by Steven Merholz

Bridge is abandoned, there are no trains that cross this bridge

Posted June 26, 2019, by Steven Merholz (Steven [dot] merholz [at] icloud [dot] com)

Bridge has been dismantled and replaced by a new concrete bridge in 2017, there is no evidence of original bridge

Posted June 26, 2019, by Steven Merholz (Steven [dot] merholz [at] icloud [dot] com)

Bridge has been dismantled and replaced by a new concrete bridge in 2017, there is no evidence of original bridge

Posted May 15, 2019, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Photo of bridge and info on repairs here: https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/chesapeake/north-landin...

This is a very unusual double swing bridge.

Posted April 22, 2019, by David Cuff (pwc [at] dynamitedave [dot] com)

A little more about the bridge from the local historical society.

http://www.historicprincewilliam.org/county-history/structur...

Posted April 3, 2019, by Timothy and Joann Phillips

I believe the Flickr photo is of a different bridge on the creeper trail: http://bridgehunter.com/va/washington/bh56400/

Posted April 3, 2019, by Timothy and Joann Phillips

Pardon the duplication.

Posted March 20, 2019, by Anonymous

Those piers are definitely NOT from the Civil War. Concrete didn't come into common railroad engineering usage until the late 1800s, well after the cessation of the Civil War.

Posted March 18, 2019, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Tony,

You assume correctly, Featherbed will be placed on steel stringers. Again, we have a "best possible" outcome, as the Consulting Parties added this alternative, which places the truss on steel stringers at existing width with one pier. Original proposals were adding "thru girder" beams (which would have blocked view of trusses), and another which would have widened the truss (destroying the Variety Ironworks design of overhead bracing).

Posted March 18, 2019, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Sounds like Virginia! I assume that the beautiful Featherbed Lane-Variety Iron Works Bridge will receive the same haphazard treatment.

Posted March 18, 2019, by Jason Smith (flensburg [dot] bridgehunter [dot] av [at] googlemail [dot] com)

Nathan, can you scan and send me a copy in PDF Format? I cannot access anything from Europe because of privacy guidelines. I'm really interested in seeing what the bridge looks like. Thanks for your help! :-)

JS

Posted March 18, 2019, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

The outcome with this bridge, while indeed frustrating, is the best possible outcome, which prevented the total destruction of this bridge. I was a Section 106 Consulting Party on this bridge, as well as another truss (Featherbed Lane) in this same VADOT district. The engineer that handles this district of Virginia said that to keep a "two eyebar" truss bridge open to traffic in a load-bearing capacity, whether for vehicular traffic or pedestrian traffic is, and I quote "Russian Roulette." The engineer was severely critical of the preservation of such bridges in other states like Michigan, and Indiana.

On top of all that, contractors were allowed to dismantle this bridge in a way that severe damage was done to rivet holes (incorrect use of cutting torch).

Now that said, the Waterloo Bridge in Virginia is to be rehabbed, but (despite excellent condition) it will have a bunch of original materials replaced including all eyebars.

Posted March 18, 2019, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

"Rehabilitation" can unfortunately offer way too many loopholes, shortcuts and compromises when compared to "Restoration".

Posted March 18, 2019, by John Marvig

Thatís a shame. Better than nothing I guess.

Posted March 18, 2019, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Looks as though the trusses are non-functional at this point.

Posted March 18, 2019, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)
Posted February 10, 2019, by yo (yomama [dot] hey [at] comcast [dot] com)

this is crappy

there is no span

i need the length

Posted February 7, 2019, by George Oakley (Georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com )

I mentioned travelling over this combination of bridges and tunnels to my fiancee.She is scared to death of these bridges and tunnels.Funny that it doesn't bother me in the least.I actually find it fascinating.Just wouldn't want to be on the bridges when there's an accident.

Posted February 6, 2019, by Wallace Johnson (wdj34 [at] msn [dot] com)

Man When Will They Replace The Deficent Bridge?

Posted February 6, 2019, by Wallace Johnson (wdj34 [at] msn [dot] com)

New Tunnel opened to traffic on June 17th 2016

Posted February 6, 2019, by Wallace Johnson (wdj34 [at] msn [dot] com)

The First Bridge-tunnel Complex Ever!

Posted February 6, 2019, by Wallace Johnson (wdj34 [at] msn [dot] com)

Hmm... it looks Like this Bridge Will Be Gone Soon

Posted January 27, 2019, by Wallace Johnson (wdj34 [at] msn [dot] com)

The Bridge is Closed As of August, 2018

Posted January 13, 2019, by Daniel C Allen (danielallencomputers [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The tunnel has large metal doors that protect during hurricane. I've seen it open during some hurricanes. The tunnel has massive pumps to pump out water and the doors can close pretty quickly. During hurricane Isabelle one of the tunnels in the area failed to close its doors and the tunnel was flooded for several days.

Posted January 6, 2019, by Mike Daffron (daffmikron [at] gmail [dot] com)

Wow! I'll shut up about the little ponies I continually whine about. What a structure! (Btw, I'll never stop whining about ponies!!)

Posted January 6, 2019, by Franklin (intelofficer [at] linuxmail [dot] org)

As of 1/1/2019 this bridge has been closed and is being demolished for replacement with a new structure.

Posted December 31, 2018, by wallace Johnson (katemimmimftlaltsupermarioftw [at] gmail [dot] com)

I Wish They Replaced this bridge

Posted December 31, 2018, by wallace Johnson (katemimmimftlaltsupermarioftw [at] gmail [dot] com)

1983 is when the bridge was Replaced

Posted December 26, 2018, by wallace Johnson (katemimmimftlaltsupermarioftw [at] gmail [dot] com)

Hmm... it looks like this bridge will be replaced soon!

Posted December 22, 2018, by Travis (tcates94 [at] aol [dot] com)

The bridge that is currently there is a concrete deck bridge put in by the SCL in the 70s.

Posted December 5, 2018, by wallace Johnson (katemimmimftlaltsupermarioftw [at] gmail [dot] com)

1962-2014

R.I.P.

4 years ago

Posted December 4, 2018, by Dave Clubb (davidclubb22 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Fall of '16. Tressel over Lake Gaston

Posted November 7, 2018, by whereyouare?

REVENITE

Posted October 16, 2018, by Daniel

I'm seriously impressed that it's still standing after having lost a pier

Posted October 7, 2018, by G. R. Harper (gr)

Deck sections over the "bents" were replaced in September, 2018.

Posted September 20, 2018, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

This "preserved" bridge is being DEMOLISHED!!!! Typical Virginia nonsense.

http://www.yourgv.com/news/local_news/clarkton-bridge-s-days...

Posted September 3, 2018, by Anonymous

Except that this entry predates yours by 8 years.

Posted August 26, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Mr obtuse

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.

Posted August 26, 2018, by Luke

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.

Posted August 26, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

"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.

Posted August 26, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

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

Posted August 25, 2018, by Luke

"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.).

Posted August 25, 2018, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Royce,

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.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/pubs/nhi09010/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.

Posted August 25, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

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.

Posted August 23, 2018, by Luke

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:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/pubs/nhi09010/tunnel_...

http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_05-03-0008.PDF

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr171/171-016.pdf

http://www.ejge.com/2008/Ppr0864.pdf

https://www.waterproofmag.com/downloads/2012-01/WP_2012-01_T...

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-0449-4_...

http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/documents/deis/03%20Const...

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.

Posted August 23, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

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.

https://www.ldoceonline.com/Engineering-topic/tunnel_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel

The NFPA defines a tunnel as an "underground" structure longer than 75 feet

http://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/978019...

on and on and on

Posted August 23, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)
Posted August 23, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

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.

Posted August 22, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Not accessible to public, restricted access on Fort Belvoir

Posted August 17, 2018, by Anonymous
Posted August 12, 2018, by Luke

Hopefully the tunnels don't catch on fire as easily as his cars :')

Posted August 12, 2018, by Don

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

Posted August 12, 2018, by Luke

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.

Posted August 12, 2018, by Anonymous

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?

Royce

Posted August 12, 2018, by Anonymous

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.

Posted August 12, 2018, by Anonymous

Seems if it wasn't tunneled it is not a tunnel, hence the word tunnel. NBI has it listed as steel stringers

Posted August 11, 2018, by Luke

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:

http://www.angelfire.com/va2/Route66/Background.html

http://www.dcroads.net/roads/I-66_VA/

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2015/02/i-66-add...

Posted August 11, 2018, by Anonymous

Let's all be like Elsa. Let it go. Let it go.

Posted August 11, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

"even VDOT calls it a tunnel" LOL, well if the government says so it must be true.

Posted August 11, 2018, by Anonymous

Funny, because even VADOT calls it a tunnel

Posted August 11, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This is not a tunnel

Posted August 8, 2018, by Anonymous

I think the bridge and tunnel should be two separate entries.

Posted July 30, 2018, by Zachary S

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.

Posted July 21, 2018, by Fred Lindenberg (linden1000 [at] aol [dot] com)

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

Posted May 17, 2018, by Susan Lea Rudd (susanlearudd [at] yahoo [dot] com)

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.

Posted April 29, 2018, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)
Posted April 3, 2018, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

The bridge is visible in this film made on 20 Sep 1944:

https://youtu.be/WjadMxpXprk?t=4m16s

Posted April 3, 2018, by Luke

Timestamped version: https://youtu.be/WjadMxpXprk?t=2m

Posted April 2, 2018, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

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.

Posted April 2, 2018, by ........b24

predecessor to this........

Posted March 26, 2018, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

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.

Posted March 26, 2018, by Kyle Obermiller (obermillerkyle [at] gmail [dot] com)

Closed to thru traffic March 2018

Posted March 5, 2018, by Andy (awmycroft [at] yahoo [dot] com)

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

Posted February 20, 2018, by PETE (scrungee [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The photo is of the Hardware river bridge at Route 6, that was replaced a few years ago by a more modern bridge.

Posted January 1, 2018, by Thomas l Cooke (madscotsman26 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

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

Posted December 10, 2017, by George oakley (georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Thanks luke.There are composite metals that are used in all kinds of applications.I forgot about wood and metal as in bridges.

Posted December 10, 2017, by Luke

Dana is correct. When trusses are referred to as "combination" or "composite", they're referring to the mixed use of timber and metal parts.

Posted December 10, 2017, by George oakley (georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

You have a good point there,Dana and Kay.Didn't look at it that way.Thanks.

Posted December 10, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

Believe it may refer defer to composite of wood and metal probably Iron. Will defer to more knowledgeable pontists for definitive answer.

Posted December 10, 2017, by George oakley (georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

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.

Posted December 9, 2017, by Anonymous

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/

Posted December 9, 2017, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Is this a rare wooden railroad truss? It certainly seems to to me!

Posted November 27, 2017, by John Marvig (marvigj27 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Those stone arch approaches must be far older than 1932. 1882 is a lot closer to the appropriate date.

Posted November 25, 2017, by John Marvig

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.

Posted November 24, 2017, by Art S. (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

Royce,

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.

Regards,

Art S.

Posted November 24, 2017, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

NBI calls it a through arch but street view differs.

Posted November 24, 2017, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

Yes, a siding, and yes, it's a bridge. A beautiful old monster--pure functionality.

Posted November 24, 2017, by Royce and Bobette Haley (roycehaley111 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Need help identifying the rail yard here. was just south of the current Richmond NS south Yard. Was still in existence in 1969.

Thanks Royce