Bartonsville Covered Bridge 45-13-11x

For the record, while iron, steel, concrete, and stone will always interest me more than wood, I would not take the hard line I do with covered bridges if they received equal treatment. Yet after 17 years of running HistoricBridges.org, Indiana may be the ONLY state that has offers a decent balance of preservation (with some exceptions, like Parke County). But then again, Indiana is generally considered one of the top states for bridge preservation in general, and is home to engineers who have a passion for preservation of a variety of historic bridge types, so that's perhaps not a major revelation.

Michael & Tony,

Covered bridges should be saved (except for those that offend Nathan :^) ). The reason they are being saved is there is adequate support to do so.

Presently, Nels/Bach is the only full service shop that does metal trusses at reasonable rates. Also, truss bridges look sharp with a fresh coat of paint but are an eyesore to most when they are rusty with pealing paint.

If it becomes more widely known that restoring historic metal bridges can be a viable alternative to replacement, then the rescue/restoration rate will improve.

Regards,

Art S.

Michael,

While I couldn't agree more that metal truss bridges are neglected and mostly disrespected by the vast majority, that's where my agreement ends. Blaming covered bridges for being what they are is like blaming a horse for being a horse. ALL historic bridges deserve equal respect. Unfortunately, it has been more of a battle for equality than what it should be. I was enamored with covered bridges as a teen, when there were so many rusty and unmaintained metal spans around me that I took for granted. After being away for 9 years and returning to find those trusses mostly obliterated, my perspective changed and I felt regret. I have been working for the past 27 years to help promote the preservation of our metal spans. We still don't win them all, but I've definitely witnessed a change here in Indiana. I just wish other states had some of the resources we have been blessed with. Having the largest preservation group in the US, along with a dear friend that has championed their cause for the past 40 years has made a difference. I still visit covered bridges from time to time, and I still respect them for what they are. But my real passion lies with those beautiful iron and steel spans that have survived against much greater odds. And I lament those states that have failed to see just what they are throwing away!

To be honest, why do we even care about the preservation of covered bridges when the publics focus on them leads them to neglect the beauty of historic steel & iron bridges ultimately leading to demolition of said bridges? I personally despise covored bridges for this exact reason.

The work and money gone into rebuilding this run of the mill covered bridge could have gone into saving a more significant metal span.

It seems the signs are made from boards recovered from the old bridge. :)

Like Art said, web navigation is easier if the new is on the same page as the old.

But I have been digging some more. The new bridge is longer, wider, higher, and uses laminated lumber for some of the high load components. The abutments are fully modern construction with steel piles to bedrock. So the new one clearly is not an 1870 bridge.

I'm glad they choose to build a timber bridge with the same type truss and similar construction technics - but I'm beginning to think the new one can't be on the same listing as the old one - except as a related bridge.

An accurate recreation of a bridge recently washed away by a storm is about as good as it gets given the circumstances. If they took a few planks off the old bridge and incorporated them into this bridge, would it be considered a 'restoration' of the original? - that's what the do with old planes. Thus, my first argument is to keep it with the original because it is a bridge built to the original's specs in the original location so there is continuity.

My second argument is keep it together for ease of website navigation.

Why are there five photos of other covered bridges located in other states on this page???

Anyway - since it seems the new bridge at this location is new construction, I'm thinking it should not be a part of this page, bug get it's own new page - if it gets a page at all as it's certainly not historic now!

Thoughts?

On a positive note:

The Bartonsville Bridge was replicated and has reopened:

http://www.wcax.com/story/20714972/historic-bridge-back-open

http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33952

Regards,

Art S.

Video footage of the actual washout available here:

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=2095508065389&comm...

This one was also lost to Irene