Post a comment
Tried to clean up the image - not on of my best efforts. That said, I figured out what the 'extra vertices were. They are the diagonal braces that run from the top chord to the outriggers. Because of the angle of the photo they look parallel to the verticals but, if you look closely on a few, they aren't.
That was the last piece that bothered me. I'm now confident it was CBW / CBCo. However, I'm not confident as to the location.
Paul, why did you create a pointless, superfluous category for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad?
I didn't want to lead anyone on as I tend to have a CBW bias. I agree with your assessment. Your example is the cutest and smallest of those that remain, which is why the Olive Bridge members seem lighter. If you use https://bridgehunter.com/oh/athens/549622/ for comparison, the same size members appear more ethereal on the larger pony and have a closer appearance to the Olive Bridge.
That said, the 'doubling' of the verticals doesn't match a known design, so either its an optical illusion, a later addition or a different maker. My guess is a later addition.
If it is CBW / CBCo., the rolled member Pratt pony design was used from the early 1870s through at least 1886.
BTW, while there are few known CBW spans left standing, they are worth visiting (the company folded in 1890, claiming to be the oldest American bridge building company operating at the time). The covered (combination), inverted bowstring is fascinating and the iron trusses have a distinct, sculpturally elegant beauty.
PS. I look forward to others opinions.
PPS. If you or Melissa want a research challenge, some of the non Burr truss covered bridges of unknown maker in OH and IN may be CBW but determining that will be hard.
I could not have said it better, it was an imposing figure to approach as a little kid. The picture below from when the new bridge opened shows how great this old " hulk " would look coming out of the trees now, what a waste. You know, I'm really testing my memory here, but it seems to me there was a stop light set up that prevented the need to cram the 4 lane road onto the 2 lane bridge. As I recall each revolution would allow west bound then east bound traffic to cross.
As for the Water Works Bridge, as you can see it was gone by '45. The pic said to be taken from the rail bridge is a great view of the Kellogg bridge, I wonder if this when they supposedly altered the river channel?
No kidding! And definitely a unique, albeit temporary, truss design that no one seems to have replicated!
I'm still learning as far as identifying a builder by the trademarks of a bridge goes, but I would lean toward this being a Columbia Bridge Works creation. The rather spartan detailing, simple, lightweight members, and endpost connections remind me somewhat of this bridge in Ohio: https://bridgehunter.com/oh/putnam/6931928/ and seem to me to fit the style of CBW. Although in this case the members appear even lighter than typical, especially the top chord. And as you said, the vertical members are rather unusual.
Great photos! That bridge certainly was a massive old hulk of a span. The pre-1923 photo that you posted appears to show a parallel-chord truss of some sort, possibly a Pratt but more likely a Whipple considering the size of the river.
I also noticed that there is what appears to be a railroad bridge with a rather interesting design on the right side of the photo. It appears to be a two-span Camelback but with four slopes in the top chord instead of the usual five. An early Pennsylvania truss maybe? It doesn't appear to be listed on Bridgehunter but this old map from 1903 does show a crossing on the Cincinnati, Georgetown, and Portsmouth Railroad at that approximate location about half a mile upstream of Kellogg Avenue: https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3...
Love the driver's name!
Not every day you see a car functioning as an end post...
This was a fun one to work on
Any thoughts on the builder? I am pretty confident on who it is but the doubling on some of the verticals is creating doubt.
Shot this from the adjacent Nickel Plate Trail on 19 October, 2021
Well, here's some unpleasant news: https://www.facebook.com/groups/454427624642414/permalink/44...
There is quite the disparity between 400 and 270 feet. If you stand at the spot now the distance seems immense, but I would not want to try to estimate it. The view in my picture is from the same spot as the demolition photo, strangely unchanged after 50 years other than some trees.
I have no idea if the bridge was reinforced after the washout disaster, I've never found anything about it---certainly would have liked to have seen a photo.
These Highway Department shots back up your notion of it being sturdy. The abutments seem huge, the beams as large as my childhood memories. I will presume the pier was left in place to aid in construction? It does not touch the bridge in any of the pictures I've found---and oddly enough, I don't remember it. So much for the memory of a 5 year old.
I remember coming across an article on newspapers.com that spoke of the specifics for the bridge that was being considered. I've never been able to find it again, but it seems to me it spoke of the dual sidewalks the bridge had, a length of 400 feet and a width of 30 feet, part of which was to allow for a center track ( supposedly for the IR&T ? ). In my earlier posting there is a pic from 1926 that shows no evidence of any type of track just 3 years after the bridge opened.
The primary beams on the bridge seemed huge but I thought these were just the memories of a little kid until I finally found some pics as an adult--and realized the bridge WAS built quite sturdy. As I recall, nobody liked the bridge, it was a traffic snarl and quite dangerous when wet. Back in those days it was notorious enough that when you referenced the Singing Bridge everybody knew which bridge you were talking about, I guess it kind of became my Charlie Brown Christmas tree.
This picture represents the only thing I've ever found pre-1923. It is difficult to make out in the upper left corner but it appears to maybe be a large Whipple?
I'd trying to find copyright information about a photo in Adobe Stock--it's also on Pinterest: Old Hilliard Bridge, 1950's South Entrance. I understand there's no licensing fee, but I'd like to use the photo on a book cover (memoir) and want to be sure there's no copyright restriction, or if there is, to find the person who owns the copyright and pay the fee
Thank you very much
As Dave King pointed out years ago, this is a duplicate.
I did a little digging but failed to find out anything about the iron bridge immediately preceding the 1923 span. I did find that a covered bridge once stood on Kellogg Avenue, probably preceding the iron bridge: http://www.lostbridges.org/details.aspx?id=OH/35-31-08x&loc=.... I'm kind of surprised that there isn't more back information readily available being that this was a major highway that we are talking about here. Judging from how the site seems to flood, there were probably several bridges built and rebuilt on Kellogg Avenue in the years before 1923.
Wow....the 1923 Kellogg Bridge sure did take a pounding in its lifetime! I'm amazed it survived all the floods that it did....but it was obviously built sturdy. The photos even remind me somewhat of Blue Rock Road, the truss details are a little different but it has the same look of mass and strength.
The first newspaper article photo on this page mentions that the bridge was to have a span length of 270 feet before the flood washed it away in 1922. Do you have any idea if this was the span length of the 1923 bridge or did they build it longer after it got washed out?
Anyone recognize this plaque?
I would start with the local museum/historical society and then the library. If you don't have any luck there expand to the state level. Also check with state university libraries. If the records did survive I'd expect they might be at one of those locations.
It's great to see that the bridge is being looked at for adaptive reuse. Melissa and myself did some work on the page for this bridge and the previous one at this location.
Many pictures and additional information at https://www.morgan-nj.org/blog/near-by-morgan/the-county-bri...
The Bridge is available to purchase
let me know if you interested..
Public domain I would think.
Hi, does anyone have information on where the Roanoke Iron & Bridge records would be located. We are in the application process to have the Startex / Tucapau bridge nominated for the National Register. The overall plan is to repurpose as a pedestrian bridge leading to a park area and walking trail.
We would love to locate plans, drawings, renderings etc. Any help would be most appreciated.
Many Thanks !!
Weird, if you look through previous streetview in 2019, the deck is gone, there is orange on the bottom of the truss, and some branches lodged on the bridge indicative of possible flooding. Not sure if the owner was trying to repair and gave up or what.
I am wondering if this bridge was actually at/near Two Bridges Road.
By the old shoe factory
Okay, trying to sort out the history of this one is making me dizzy so here is everything in a nutshell in the order that I believe is most plausible at this juncture:
1) The 1883 Railroad Reports give a build date of 1879-1880 for a bridge with three 200' Pratt spans, one 290' swing span, and one span that was being rebuilt after being destroyed by flooding at the time of writing.
2) The 1884 Railroad Reports mention that the three 200' Pratts on this bridge were destroyed by flooding. Whether this occurred before or after the 1883 report was written is not clear. If it was pre-1883, it would explain why the Pratt spans had a different builder in the 1883 report than the swing span, which apparently survived the flood.
3) This 1883 view depicts a bridge buried in ice with a Pratt approach and a swing span with a curved top chord.
4) I also found this photo, which is said to date from approximately the 1890's and which I believe is at a minimum post-1884 because the trusses of the Cherry Street Bridge are visible in the foreground; it shows Pratt approach trusses as well.
5) This photo, which is definitely from 1908, shows the bridge in the background of the Cherry Street Bridge with Whipple approaches on the south, a curved-chord swing span, and a Pratt span on the north.
There is also this 1883 stereoview that depicts a bridge that may or may not be the PRR crossing, but which I have a strong hunch it is: https://www.ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p16007coll33/i...
So the questions are: Was this bridge originally built with Pratt trusses and later reconstructed with Whipples as it appears? Or are some of these photos actually showing a different bridge? And when the Railroad Reports say "Pratt", are they actually referring to Whipple trusses, which are basically double-intersection Pratts, or to true single-intersection Pratt trusses?
Definitely it appears that this bridge was rebuilt at some point, probably more than once. Any input would be welcomed.
I know the feeling. :)
According to this article from the East Toledo Historical Society it looks like a temporary bridge was built here in 1873 and was replaced with a more permanent structure in 1874: https://www.facebook.com/EastToledoHistoricalSociety/photos/...
This article gives some interesting back information about the bridge and the companies involved in its construction: http://www.trainweb.org/annarbor/AARRHistory/Toledo%20And%20...
My biggest basis for suggesting Rust & Coolidge was the similar span at Pontiac, Illinois; built only a year before at a different location on the same railroad (http://bridgehunter.com/il/livingston/bh64036/). However, I suggested this more as conjecture, as I was not sure about the differing plaque shapes. Keystone certainly makes more sense, especially comparing to bridges such as the Park County, Colorado bridge.
I too am surprised about the bridge only lasting until 1891/1892. I have found several sources indicating the 1892 completion date, including historic newspapers, a 1902 Wabash Railroad bridge book and this article about the collapse:
However, this article seems to claim the span was built in 1897, despite railroad records suggesting otherwise (pg 11):
I would be curious to know if there is a reason to think the 1897 date is accurate over articles and the railroad records themselves, especially since three known spans still exist of the 1891/92 bridge.
No, I probably just need to clean my glasses 🤓
I don't think so--the pre-1904 span was a Pratt truss according to the source link on its page.
The two photos on this page look like the same bridge to me--am I missing something?
I must admit that I don't know very much about Rust & Coolidge. To me, it doesn't resemble any of their bridges listed on Bridgehunter. That said, I'm curious as to the basis of John's thoughts.
Based on the plaque alone, I can't see how it could be R&S.
Separately, I was surprised that it only lasted until 1891.
From the link in the sources.
In preparing to respond to Luke regarding Rust & Coolidge vs. Keystone, I poked around the site looking at examples of each. In looking at the image for this listing, I'm pretty certain that the little Pratt truss on left looks to have a Rust & Coolidge plaque. Also, its either very advanced for 1874 or its newer than 1874.
Anyone have more info on this crossing?
So cool seeing bridges that are both vertical-lift and swing, even if one of the movable spans is rendered inoperable. The Atchafalaya River bridge in Morgan City, LA, is another example.
Strangely enough, the old aerials are a bit clearer at Bothwell - it actually looks like Bothwell may also have had a pony that was about this size?
As it turns out, Bothwell not only had the road straightened out at the creek like Warwick did, but that span was last replaced in 1980 as well. But it's as you said: The curves at the crossing were right turns, not left ones, so this postcard bridge can't be Bothwell.
There are now two pages for if someone learns more about the 1885 span.
Google Street View in 2021 shows southbound traffic on the rehabilitated bridge.
Photo #510203 looks different. Is it the older bridge ?
Just learned of plans to do away with Hwy 130 truss bridges at Lone Rock. Assuume DOT has determined they are unsafe and irreparable. Is there a basis for challenging? If not, is it feasible to preserve the bridges in place for pedestrian and bicycle traffic? These historic structures imbue the river and landscape with tremendous character and charm. Inconceivable they will be relocated (unlikely)or demolished. Cherished by so many residents and tourists.
Keystone was one of my thoughts, but John also thought it may have been another Rust & Coolidge span.
According to this 1980 issue of the State Line Observer they did straighten out the curves somewhat from being a pair of very sharp turns. Unfortunately the issue makes no mention of the old bridge on the site.
After looking at some pictures I took a few years ago of what appears to be old abutments on Bothwell, I'm pretty certain that it's not the location depicted in either photo of the Niger Bridge--the bluff behind the old remains is much too tall. I remember seeing a photo somewhere a while back that showed a through truss in the Medina area--my guess is that the through span was on Bothwell and the Niger pony was on Warwick based on the topography of the site.
I found a higher resolution version and posted it as well as a 'cleaned up version.'
Both Keystone and Wrought Iron Bridge Co. used a relatively similar plaque shape. However, the with the slightly higher resolution, the portal design and slight differences in the plaque design can be seen, identifying it as Keystone (I expected WIBCo.).
For comparison, Plaque and portal bracing: https://bridgehunter.com/ct/new-london/bh88314/ and portal bracing: https://bridgehunter.com/va/prince-william/14340/
That's a beauty!
I'm thinking a Canton Bridge Co.? Or perhaps a Central Concrete and Construction Co.? The previous bridge washed out in the 1904 flood so I'm assuming a build date of 1904-1905.
Warwick being a better fit for this bridge is the impression that I get too, when I look at the StreetView for that road's crossing now: https://firstname.lastname@example.org,-84.2563106,3a,75y,1...
Based on that curve, I really get a sense of it being the same location.
Although...looking at the location on Historic Aerials, it appears when they built the bridge that's there now, they straightened out the curve a little bit. But I do wonder if by any chance this bridge might have lasted up until 1980 - unfortunately, the Aerials aren't quite clear as to what kind of bridge was there in the 50s.
google map is wrong. Bridge connected to Fifth Ave and is now gone. Current Jerome Street Bridge now connects old Jerome St area (rebuilt as Lysle Blvd) one block north of Fifth, to the same spot in the 10th ward for both bridges. I believe in the 1930s.
Shame there's not a clearer shot of the plaque.
Nice find, Geoff! I also uncovered this other photo: https://www.ebay.com/itm/384191791147
While I don't know for sure, I think a more likely location for this bridge would be at Warwick Road to the east rather than Bothwell. Old maps show that Bothwell Highway had right-turning curves on both sides of the Bean Creek bridge, while the photo appears to show a left curve, which Warwick Road does have at its bridge. The crossing at Bothwell also has a steep bluff on one side, while the Warwick location seems to be a better match for the flat terrain depicted in the photo.
This is a Pratt pony truss, not a Warren.
Nothing like a full dozen Pratt trusses to make a bridge look imposing!
You're Welcome !
Mystery solved--thanks, Melissa!
It's not a picture of route 40. Check the approach span that matches one of the trusses on the converted railroad bridge in https://bridgehunter.com/md/harford/susquehanna-river/
How is that possible that its a rail bridge by showing it's a road bridge of Route 40?
Unless I missed something, this bridge has been replaced. No longer here.
And we all benefit!
Ta daa!!!! :^)
Thanks Art. You know I love research and documentation.
Perrysburg Journal: July 29 1899
Looking at the approaches closely, you're right.
Actually these "medallion" plaque bridges were built as late as 1916. 1899 would actually be early for this design. Central Concrete and Construction Company of Canton, Ohio may have also been involved with some aspects of construction.
The swing bridge is not the Rt. 40 Bridge. The post card in color shows the swing bridge of the old PB&W RR bridge that no longer exists. (1866 to 1942) When the current Amtrak bridge was built, the older bridge was converted to a vehicular bridge. Once the Rt 40 (Millard Tydings bridge) was completed, the older railroad / Vehicular bridge was dismanteled and sold for scrap.
These two are based around the same postcard...
I love the three articles you found!
This is a perfect example that things aren't always what they seem.
In 1878 the crossing was known as Military Ford. Implying this may be the first bridge at this site. They also only ordered the through span (the middle one). I suspect something changed once construction started and the pony trusses were added.
Given the change in design between the 1878 article and what as built, I'm guessing it took a little while for the dust to settle. It was a split vote to begin with the location chosen to save cost. My guess is the bridge wasn't finished until 1879, maybe 1880.
Then looking at the 1963 article has the bridge as built in 1840 (before the bowstring was invented). And the 1974 article has it at 1864. Also note what it would have cost to fix according to the 1874 article.
These three articles are an excellent example of why I've grown to be cautious and your research is so helpful.
We are gradually reclaiming a portion of our history that we unknowingly lost. Bringing back the historical context should help with preservation.
Here is a link to a historical photo of the bridge. This is taken from the top of the bridge looking north and, as near as I can tell, in about the 1940s:
Some of the houses & buildings in the photo are still there and none date from before 1940. Cars and trucks appear to match that approximate date as well. With the wagons and such this might be a special event like a Fourth of July parade.
I don't know what is correct build date, but it has the appearance of a turn of the century. I would say 3% chance its 1889ish and 97% chance its 1899ish.
Previous bridge (30 years old at the time) was washed out in 56 by a flood: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/10378271/
Worst thing about it is what they could have done for the bridge with what they spent on demolition. This bridge would have been an awesome landmark in the middle of this town, much like Kellogg Avenue would look fabulous carrying the bike/walking path through the Magrish Preserve.
Speaking of Kellogg Avenue, I have never had much luck finding anything on the pre-1923 bridge---other than it was condemned. Think you would have any luck?
I totally agree Luke!
Hi there, I'm Laif. I'm 16 from Oregon and I've appreciated this site for a long time. I just requested an editing account. Thanks!
Not sure which is correct, but Old Ohio Bridges.com gives an 1889 build date for this bridge while the NBI says 1899.
I second that--especially since the new bridge was built a quarter of a mile downstream on a totally new alignment. New Baltimore could have had a unique symbol of their town if they had preserved the old giant and restored it for pedestrians, similar to Dayton's old Rip Rap Road Bridge except about 1 1/2 times as big. Fortunately Nathan Holth at Historic Bridges.org was able to amass a huge selection of photos of the Blue Rock span before it was demolished.
My childhood landmark was always the Waterville Bridge, https://bridgehunter.com/oh/wood/8702462/. That crossing will never hold the same appeal since they tore it down last year.
Thank you for posting.
I have some guesses but its still fuzzy enough to get in trouble.
This entry should probably be merged with https://bridgehunter.com/la/st-mary/bh43119/, since the 1909 swing still remains...
What I wouldn't give to go back in time and see this one! Not only was it long and ornate, but it looked like the builders took about every truss type and size they could think of and combined them all together into this magnificent hodgepodge of a bridge! There is an enormous amount of history behind it too, with the essay I added providing only a brief overview of it all.
Bridge looks 100% relocated here.
I read in the Reading Eagle that this bridge has been rehabilitated and opened up as part of the Schuylkill River/Auburn trail.The trail is complete to River Road.
Presented for discussion:
This one still eats at me, I can't imagine why the need was felt to demolish it. What a waste of money, it was a magnificent structure. It always reminded me of Kellogg Avenue because of the size and the steel floor, a little blast from my childhood.
I would love to know the criteria ( if there is any ) that has spared the precious few versus all the ones that are needlessly demolished.
This is an incredible length for a Parker truss. I did an advanced search and it appears that the Blue Rock Road Bridge possessed the longest traditional pinned Parker truss span (by traditional I mean non-continuous/cantilevered and non-K-Parker) in the Bridgehunter database. Barring a mis-categorization or the possibility of a bridge having been built and removed without being added to the database, it appears that this may have been the longest pin-connected Parker truss span and the longest vehicular Parker ever built in the United States.
I'm surprised that no one has yet added the pre-1913 bridge at New Baltimore as it was an immense single truss span itself.
This next Pic of the Week looks at James' pic of a farmstead and this remnant of a truss bridge used as a decoration. I had some thoughts about how we can reuse old bridges instead of simply building new with the materials we don't have much left. Have a look at it and the examples that are being used. You will be amazed at what we can do with a bridge:
How would you use recycled materials from an old building to build a bridge? You'll learn about it in this week's Newsflyer podcast. Click here and listen.
Also included in the story: The expected demolition of three historic bridges, remants of a historic bridge now opens as a pier, and the restoration of one bridge. And I hope you like Pooh Bear as there is a story on that. :-)
Built circa 1949. Bypassed circa 1979
I think I figured out where this one was. There is a slim possibility it is a crossing of little muddy creek, but West main over Mulford's run is much more likely.
That seems like a good idea. Am out of the office thru Monday night if any of this requires me to do something like moving photo etc.
I saw your previous post. The 'rehab' seems to have involved a superstructure replacement. Should this one be split into 2: 1885 - 1960 and 1960 on, with the image staying with the new span?
Thank you for posting! The stagecoach is interesting. I suspect it's a later image recreating an early period, using a preserved stagecoach.
Note the knocked over finial. Also, I'm unfamiliar with the lovely plaque. My swag is Buckeye, but its low confidence.
Do you have a link to the original? Maybe there's more resolution to make the text readable.
Good call Luke, you’re probably right. The plaque is less “pointy” than this example seen on Frisco Bridges in Kansas, but still has a similar shape: http://bridgehunter.com/photos/40/82/408251-L.jpg
CBQ did use King extensively, so this makes sense. Unfortunately, the portals where the plaque existed were replaced in the BNSF era.
Good news. Thanks for the update!
The bridges are named after the John Diehl Ditch. I assume the ditch is named for your great grandfather or another relative.
Just so you know, this entry is for the much older iron truss bridge (1880s) which supported the road, not the newer concrete arch carrying the interurban track in the foreground. That said, both crossed the John Diehl Ditch.
I recently came across this bridge. I was hoping someone had some history on it.
Hiked back to the bridge this weekend. Still there, though the east abutment isn't in the best of shape.
Bridge is completely re-decked and open to traffic.