Recent Vermont Comments

Post a comment Contact webmaster

Posted December 5, 2021, by Chester Gehman (gehmanc2000 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Photo in question is indeed BH 95356, "Bridge Street (West)" also called "The Long Bridge" as it was the longest single-span bridge entirely within the state of Vermont north of Brattleboro.

Posted December 5, 2021, by Paul Plassman

The photo looks like it might go with this bridge:

Kind of confusing though because Bridge Street crosses the Lamoille River twice on the west side of Morrisville.

I'm not 100% sure about the location but it seemed like the most plausible option....historic aerials only go back to 1995 so no help there on this crossing.

Posted December 5, 2021, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

This bridge doesn't match up with the description of the one that existed here until 2009, and definitely wasn't built in 1926. I'm guessing that the bridge pictured was somewhere "near" Morrisville.

Posted August 26, 2021, by Joshua Moldover (jamoldover [at] oxfordjunction [dot] com)

If you read through the EPA documentation, it includes not only plans of the bridge (and the components) as built, but also states that "In March 1987, the counterweight for the bridge was removed and placed on the north shore of the barge canal outlet west of the bridge. Portions of the counterweight and associated steel framework remain in place. A portion of one side of the counterweight was cut away to permit the construction of the Burlington bicycle path bridge across the opening of the barge canal." The date the counterweight was removed and the bridge fixed in place is clearly stated.

Posted August 18, 2021, by Michael Taylor (battlebotguy2 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

On mobile so cant input more than 1 photo at once. Sorry.

Posted August 18, 2021, by Michael Taylor (battlebotguy2 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

A couple photos I took, again feel free to add them

- Michael "Okamifan1" Taylor

Posted August 18, 2021, by Michael Taylor (battlebotguy2 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

News article about the truck collision:

This is inexcusable.

Posted August 18, 2021, by Michael Taylor (battlebotguy2 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Oversized truck collision happened on memorial day, about 30,000$ in damage to this historic bridge, driver was hit with 6 moving violations. The front is gone, picture of the aftermath attached.

Posted August 17, 2021, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

The building in both photos does match, so I would agree that the second photo depicts an earlier bridge. The polygonal pony was most likely built by the state highway department, possibly when Main St. first became a state route.

That being said it should have a seperate page instead of being added to this one.

Posted July 4, 2021, by Steve Lindsey (SteveLindsey60 [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Update. Bridge to be replaced with new pedestrian bridge. Restricted water flow is the reason given.

Posted June 27, 2021, by Rick McOmber (rrmc500 [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge as seen in the famous Budweiser Holiday Greeting commerical.

Posted May 18, 2021, by Southern Vermont Railfan (Vermontrailfan94 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Photos 2-4 shows NECR West River Bridge, ~20 miles south on the Palmer Subdivision.

Posted March 31, 2021, by Steve Lindsey (SteveLindsey60 [at] hotmail [dot] com)
Posted March 18, 2021, by Kent Baker (kent [at] kentbakermusic [dot] com)

The bridge has been closed to traffic since May 26, 2020. It is scheduled to be replaced in 2024.

Posted February 25, 2021, by Brian J. McKee (bjmckee [at] gmail [dot] com)

On February 24, 2021, an article in the "Manchester Journal" stated that this bridge is now closed to traffic due to "rotting timbers".

Posted February 7, 2021, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Caused by a faulty snowmobile that caught fire... Wow!

Posted February 6, 2021, by Alexander D. Mitchell IV (LNER4472 [at] verizon [dot] net)
Posted February 6, 2021, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Collapsed after catching on fire earlier today...

Posted September 23, 2020, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

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, 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.

Posted September 23, 2020, by Art S. (Asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)

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.


Art S.

Posted September 22, 2020, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)


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!

Posted September 22, 2020, by Michael Taylor (battlebotguy2 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

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.

Posted September 20, 2020, by Charlie Morse (clmorse [at] tds [dot] net)

The story goes: Mahlon needed a garage and barn but knew if he built either he would have to pay taxes. He built his garage over the brook as a bridge. The town fathers were on to the scheme, collected taxes on the barn, and had to reverse their decision on appeal.

Posted August 5, 2020, by Nick Boppel (nickboppel01 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Y'know, it really bothers me that they still call the modern replacement USEB (Ugly Steel Eyesore Bridge) "The Arch Bridge". Sure, the steel girders have a slight arched/curved shape to them, but continuing to call the crossing "The Arch Bridge" seem unwise at best, insulting at worst.

Posted August 5, 2020, by Nick Boppel (nickboppel01 [at] gmail [dot] com)

There is a new modern pony truss bridge at this location. I'm currently on a trip up in this area so I will try and get some photos.

Posted May 27, 2020, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

FWIW the verse on the plaque is from:

Posted February 8, 2020, by B (bradopusnet [at] gmail [dot] com)

The images currently shown on this page are of the "high bridge" from South Burlington to Colchester, near the present Interstate 89 Bridge over the Winooski River and Burlington International Airport, not the Heineberg that connected the Mallett's Bay area to Burlington's "New North End"and was much nearer the mouth of the Winooski. Enclosed is a correct image of the 'new' Heineberg Steel Bridge being opened in 1936. It has since been replaced by the circ. highway bridge.

Posted January 8, 2020, by Joel Wyman (ponchoman49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

A sad loss. It's bad enough how man is destroying what little we have left of these beautiful structures then to see mother nature doing her evil work making it even worse!

Posted November 14, 2019, by Anonymous (Jcyr [at] middlebury [dot] )

Description says between Middlebury and Weybridge, incorrect it's Middlebury and New Haven.

Posted October 28, 2019, by Nathan Holth

Article on bridge rehab.

Previous bridge was a concrete arch, as attached. Bottom photo shows its destruction in a flood.

Posted September 29, 2019, by isabella mertens (isabella [dot] mertens [at] stjlabs [dot] com)

visited it today to do some photos for a photography project, seems like somebody is squatting there... or it might be a pullover place for snowmobilers. there is a trash heap, a mattress, and a little room somebody built.

Posted September 10, 2019, by Will Truax (Bridgewright [at] gmail [dot] com)

A bit more of a direct route to Dela's story, this kid is my hero for the day!

Posted September 10, 2019, by Melissa Brand-Welch (melissabrandwelch [at] msn [dot] com)

That's Adorable!

Posted September 10, 2019, by Mike Kerkau (mjkerkau [at] gmail [dot] com)

LYNDON, Vt. (AP) A 4-year-old Vermont boy has posted a colorful, handmade sign to warn drivers about a beloved coverage bridge's height and weight limits in an effort to ensure the structure isn't damaged again.

In May, a food delivery truck that was too large caused more than $50,000 in damage to the Miller's Run Bridge in Lyndon.

The damage to the bridge built in 1878 saddened Dela Stoddard-McGrath, of Wheelock, who uses the bridge on his way to and from preschool, the Caledonian Record reported.

"He wanted to check up on it all summer long to see the progress and when it was going to open," Henekis Stoddard, Dela's mother, told

After the bridge reopened in August, Dela made his sign "to make cars not hurt the bridge," the boy said. He and a town official posted the temporary sign on Friday.

The sign warns, in an array of colors and in the young child's handwriting: "Stop! Back up if you're more than 11' 9" or 16,000 pounds."

Selectman Dan Daley said he thought the boy's request to post the sign was "awesome."

Posted July 2, 2019, by Scott Gavin (trainnut1956 [at] gmail [dot] com)

I saw this bridge about a month before it was demolished. I saw the news broadcast about its destruction, too. After repeated attempts to blow it up, they finally resorted to cutting through the arches with welding torches and then made a final attempt. When it went down, it fell sideways and landed in the river more or less in one piece. When the newscaster interviewed a local boy, the kid shook his head in disgust at the silliness of adults and said "They told us it was so unsafe we couldn't even walk across it."

Posted June 23, 2019, by Luke
Posted April 16, 2019, by Bonnie Knaus (bknaus7 [at] outlook, [dot] com)

I remember my father Rene Berard and his construction business was hired to patch the bridge. I remember standing on the side Of St. Mikes and watching as his men worked. Can you tell me the year that happened?

Thank you, Bonnie Knaus

Posted October 31, 2018, by Dennis Cass (denniscass [at] yahoo [dot] com)

In the summer of 1968, my mother and I joined my father in North Hero where he was operating a crane to assist in the removal of the footings for this bridge. As I was eleven at the time, my memories are sketchy, but I believe the bridge itself had been removed a few years prior to the final demolition.

We watched from a boat anchored about half a mile away when the footings were dynamited. First, we saw the stone flying in all directions, then felt the shock wave hit the boat. A moment later the sound waves hit. It made quite a bang.

Locals converged on the site in their boats to scoop up the fish that had been stunned by the explosion.

Posted October 26, 2018, by Dana and Kay Klein

Thanks as always for info Luke

Posted October 26, 2018, by Luke

Public, part of a cross-state trail run by a non-profit.

Posted June 9, 2018, by Anonymous

Well, at least the good folks of Chelsea, Vermont have a bridge that is neither astoundingly beautiful or horribly ugly. It's a halfway decent-looking utility bridge that does its job.

Posted June 9, 2018, by Anonymous

"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference."

Posted June 5, 2018, by Don Morrison

LOL. I had forgotten about this one. Wonder if the deck is still holding up and the railings still attached. It's been three years.

Posted June 5, 2018, by Anonymous

I see that the pompous essay was removed.

Posted June 5, 2018, by Anonymous

Absolutely no value other than getting across the stream. Just wanted to jump in before the entire page is deleted, hopefully.

Posted March 17, 2018, by Jaison Desai (jaisond [at] andrew [dot] cmu [dot] edu)

This bridge should be listed on C3030 (Bible Hill Road), with an NBI Structure Number of 101422003314221. That lists it as Year Built of 1919 and is confirmed by Lat/Long in NBI.

There is another similar bridge, Best's Covered Bridge, carrying C3037 (Churchill Road) which has the NBI Structure Number 101422003414221 and lists a Year Built of 1890.

Posted February 26, 2018, by Anonymous

Photos 6 & 7 seem to be a different bridge.

Posted February 10, 2018, by Noel Lapointe (nlpnt [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This bridge was torn down and a new one opened in 1987.

Posted October 29, 2017, by Anonymous

Here's a photo I took earlier this month:

Posted October 25, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

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.

Posted August 25, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

I haven't been able to find an age or builder for this one. The plate girder design makes it a bit harder to date as well since they didn't change much over the years, but I would say its likely from 1900-1920

Posted August 25, 2017, by Mike R (Michael [dot] p [dot] ricciardi [at] gmail [dot] com)

Anyone know what year this bridge was built?

Posted May 21, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

This is by far the interesting railroad bridge I have yet to document. The scale and complexity of it was actually a bit staggering...especially in the context of a more rural part of the country where dual-tracked railroad bridges are non-existent (this is the only one in either VT or NH), and the scale of the single track ones never quite come to this level of heavy duty.

The design features are also quite unique. This is pretty late for a pin connected railroad bridge, giving it a elegant look with massive eye-bars and pins. Accounting to a very complex maneuver of crossing the river, the bridge executes 2 turns across the river, creating an even wider 1st span to accommodate the turn. Looking closer, you'll realize that the decking itself is actually built to incline into the curve, making it look crooked at first glance.

Well worth the visit. Wish they could convert this to a rail trail someday, the bridge itself is in excellent condition.

Posted May 10, 2017, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

This must have been a classy bridge when built. I hate to see the old ones from this era allowed to decay.

Posted May 10, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Glad I was in the neighborhood to give this one a quick documentation. A replacement bridge is being built alongside it, with it looking to be getting close to done. Demolition of this bridge will probably follow soon after.

Posted May 2, 2017, by george oakley (georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Michael,you got me thinking about something when you mentioned rail.If i'm not mistaken and i might be Reading Iron Co could have made rail parts like the plates,spikes and of course rail.I wouldn't put nothing past an iron company to do that.Like i said i worked for the company that took over Reading Iron so i don't really know what they made with the iron they had.

Posted May 1, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

George, it was my first time ever coming across that stamp in all of my travels, so I don't think it was too common (of course its not like mid 1890's railroad bridges are anywhere near as common as I'd like).

I did find it odd that the stamp was just "Reading, PA" though. But for companies at that time and place Reading Iron Co. seems to fit.

Posted May 1, 2017, by george oakley (georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Michael,you said in picture # 29 the iron was stamped with Reading meaning Reading Iron Co.I worked for Cambridge-Lee Industries who Reading Iron became.Didn't know there was iron from that company on any bridges.

Posted May 1, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Did a site visit on April 30th. I was very happy to see that the bridge got a rehabilitation in 2015, showing that the VTR intends to keep this bridge in service for more years to come. This is important as this is the oldest RR bridge still in service in VT, as well as the only wrought iron one and also as long span example of a riveted double intersection Warren truss

There was some loss of historic integrity of the bridge with this rehab though; Both abutments were rebuilt with concrete (replacing one original stone abutment), some strengthening steel plates were added to the endposts, several rivets replaced with bolts, and the largest hit being the original girder deck stringers being replaced by modern steel stringers. However the overall function of the truss was not affected, and no repairs or modifications had to be made to the truss web.

Not too bad overall. Wish more truss bridges were maintained like this!

Posted April 11, 2017, by george oakley (georgeoakley49 [at] yahoo [dot] com)

Michael,do you know why they would cover over the rail and not remove it?Sounds weird to me.Maybe you or anybody else can find out.

Posted April 11, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Well looks like my optimism was misplaced. The existing components are going to be replaced with 2 125 foot modern spans. A silver lining is that the original ashlar pier and abutments will be retained and refurbished.

I'm pretty conflicted, as this bridge was quite a mish-mash of components from different times that made it pretty unique, but of questionable historic integrity/value. Its added timber pile piers contributed both to its initial failure, and were going to be a problem in the future. Returning it to a straight 2 span system will prevent future problems and undoubtedly keep down maintenance costs. But on the other hand it was a exceptional demonstration of the desperate times for the STJ & LC with its cobbled-together appearance giving it an incredible amount of character. Maybe it was a bridge only a pontist could love

Posted March 13, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Bidding has been put out for the construction of this bridge. It'll be nice to see this one put back together!

Posted March 7, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Its already in trail use on the The Mile-Around Woods Trail. Its excellent that it was saved...even if it is just over a small ditch!

Posted March 7, 2017, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

So is this the site of a future trail? Cause it sure looks like it's just sitting in the middle of a farm over a dry ditch? It's a shame they changed the width, but with the rarity and how long it sat in the landfill I'm glad they saved it!

Posted February 19, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

The date is correct, this is a rebuilt one. The original 1867 bridge was destroyed by an overweight truck in 1980.

This is about as close as you could get to the original as possible though, it was built to the speicifications of the original by a local bridgewright Arnold Graton, who constructed his bridges in the exact fashion as they would have been historically (down to building them on the ground and dragging them into position by Oxen).

Posted February 18, 2017, by Tom Hoffman

Is this 1982 date right or is this a rebuilt bridge?

Posted February 8, 2017, by Robert Elder (robertelder1 [at] gmail [dot] com)

Nice discovery. There are some small, unassuming bridges out there with strong significance. Looks can be deceiving.

Posted February 8, 2017, by Dana and Kay Klein

Curious if aggregate is river rounded or crushed. Anecdotally river gravel concrete around here holds up better than more modern crushed.

Posted February 8, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Never would've guessed that this was any sort of significant, having driven by it more times then I can count. Turns out its (as far as anyone can tell) the first concrete bridge to have been built in VT. And a pre-1900 concrete bridge as well makes it a rare find. I'll have to document it the next time I'm in that area!

Posted January 30, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

This bridge is gone, with the new modern 2 span pony truss built just downstream. This was the only historic multi-span pony truss in VT, and given that it wasn't in the way of the replacement it seems an unnecessarily harsh decision to remove it instead of just leaving it in place.

Posted January 30, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Good news for this bridge!

As part of a general reconstruction of downtown, the ugly concrete facade for this bridge will be removed. Coverings on the other side will also be removed, restoring this back to being a bridge and not just a glorified culvert. The bridge itself is a beautiful 2 span marble structure, and its restoration is welcome news and is a success for historic bridges restoration.

Also exciting is that the location for the 1896 Lenticular Pony truss that the town has had in storage since 2013 has been determined and will be just downstream beneath the falls. Eagerly awaiting its placement!

Posted January 30, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Finally made it out to this one, a bit out of the way but a scenic drive nonetheless. The bridge is a neat survivor of a pre- 1927 flood pony truss. The Warren truss, while common for this length of bridge and time, is lightly built (no doubt owing to its remote location), with the most simple verticals I have yet encountered.

Pervasive rust damage to the lower sections of the bridge have compromised this structure. The Bailey truss runs slightly above the road deck and is independent of the historic bridge.

Posted January 19, 2017, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

I concur, and also removed the "Central Vermont" category as well, as the Central Vermont/NECR trackage enters White River junction south of this river and never operated over this bridge. The Montpelier and Barre trackage is what is now the Washington County 'Granite Division' and also never operated here.

Posted January 19, 2017, by Steve LaBonte (mv_jct [at] yahoo [dot] com)

This bridge was not a part of the Montpelier and Barre or the New England Central RR.

Between the when the B&M left the line and the Washington County too over the line was operated by the Canadian Pacific railway.

Posted November 28, 2016, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

You might be a pontist if family movie night is paused, rewound, and zoomed in because you spotted a builders plate. Thankfully the kids and wife are used to things like this...

The quality of the youtube video isn't enough to read it, but you can at least spot the plate and enjoy the long lost lattice railing.

It looks like the bridge was replaced this year. Terrible shame, it would have been the only extant Canton Bridge Co. product in VT. But if this shows anything though, there are still notable things to be found!

Posted November 8, 2016, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Missed this one by about 17 years...should've known those sufficiency ratings were too high for a historic truss bridge.

Replaced with a modern welded polygonal warren pony...pretty standard in its design and implementation for this era.

I haven't been able to confirm yet, but there's a reasonable chance this bridge is in storage somewhere. On the '98 Historic Truss plan for the state this bridge was listed for relocation/preservation use. Hopefully that's what ended up happening!

Posted November 3, 2016, by Nathan Holth (webmaster [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Looks like demolition and replacement to me. Vermont probably thought the covered bridge preservation approach (replace everything and keep calling it historic) was OK with this metal truss bridge as well. Its not. I agree with the observation about Checkered House... that one remains historic.

Posted November 2, 2016, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

Not quite, the Checkered House bridge retained as much of the original material as possible during its rehabilitation & widening. The original overhead bracing is still there, with the added material quite distinct (which I appreciate, despite its uneven appearance, as you can still see where the original truss line was). Rivets are still plentiful as well, with only necessary replacements being done. Overall there is enough material to still justify the '29 build date.

I didn't see anything like that on this bridge to hint at its past.

Posted November 2, 2016, by Clark Vance (cvance [at] dogmail [dot] com)

Did this one get the same treatment as the Checkered House Bridge?

Posted November 2, 2016, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

I'm hoping to get some input from my peers on how exactly to classify this bridge, as its been making my head hurt. Most likely me just overthinking it...but I like good bridge data :P

This bridge was completely rebuilt in 2011, and its hard to tell how much (if any) is original. The bridge is significantly wider then it used to be (add almost 10 feet to the width), and I couldn't find a single rivet on the entire structure...everything was bolts. The style of the bridge was retained/replicated, with the rebuilt overhead bracing still being built up members (again with bolts though) and the truss web still being the same style.

And thus my quandary: keep it as a single entry and go with "completely rebuilt 2011", or list the old one as "lost" and set up a new entry for this bridge. NBI lists the build date as 2011, reflecting that this is pretty much a new bridge that just looks like the old one.

Thoughts either way?

Posted November 2, 2016, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

This little guy is in trouble:

From the report it looks like corrosion of the concrete abutment and stringer pedestals has caused the deck stringers to no longer be supported by the abutment, with the truss handling all the load. Or how the state report eloquently explained it:

"The end of the deck and floorsystem at the northern abutment is now basically cantilevered off from the last floorbeam"

Being owned by the RR instead of the state might make it easier to replace, however this bridge is listed in the States historic truss bridge plan as a top tier candidate for its feasibility of rehabilitation as opposed to replacement.

I also found it odd that this problem cropped up so quickly, with both super and substructures earning a "fair" mark only 2 years ago. Looking at photos from the inspection back in 2012 we could already see section loss and pervasive rust at the abutments. A cautionary tale how a little preventative maintenance back then could have averted this situation now.

Posted October 28, 2016, by Justin Coleman (justin [at] jgcoleman [dot] com)

At least one other problem the bridge suffers from, aside from the lack of siding, is a leaking roof. When I was out there in June (2016), I noticed that the corrugated roofing is riddled with perforations. It seems to me that the roofing panels were perhaps salvaged from an old barn and re-purposed as roofing for the bridge. Of course, most of the old nail holes don't align with mounting surfaces on the bridge, so there's no doubt that the roof leaks like a sieve.

Posted September 26, 2016, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)

And a complete lack of any general maintenance. Any span, irregardless of material, needs occasional work. It's unfortunate that this one can't get the restoration it needs...we already have few enough examples of the Paddleford truss system.

Posted September 26, 2016, by Tony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Lack of siding will eventually do that to a wooden bridge!

Posted September 26, 2016, by Justin Coleman (justin [at] jgcoleman [dot] com)

I visited Lord's Creek Covered Bridge earlier this year on June 10, 2016 during a fishing trip throughout the Northeast Kingdom. It is of note that the bridge has now been reinforced with heavy, steel girders. One pair of girders act as stringers, spanning the river and resting on the bridge abutments. Girders have also been added beneath the bridge deck and fastened to the length-wise stringers with heavy u-bolts. Suffice it to say that the bridge's timber trusses, which are still entirely present, have worn to the point that they were likely incapable of bearing their own load; they now serve only to hold up the roof. Even with steel girder reinforcement, it is clear that the timber-framed bridge structure has a distinct negative camber.

I've visited this bridge several times over the years. While it's a shame that the timber trusses have reached the end of their functional lifespan, it's great to see that the bridge was nonetheless saved rather than hastily demolished.

Posted September 10, 2016, by Michael Quiet (mquiet [at] gmail [dot] com)


No confirmation yet, but seems likely this will be arson. Having documented this bridge it is sickening to see it reduced to a smoldering heap.

Posted August 22, 2016, by rich (rh-time [at] hotmail [dot] com)

I was trying to find a picture of the bridge crossing rock river before this one. It was located about 1/4 mile upstream on rock river. The footings are still noticeable near the cabin on 10 station rd. Just wondering if you could help. Thanks

Posted August 18, 2016, by Michael Quiet (MQuiet [at] Gmail [dot] com)

7 years on and this exceptional example of an Open-Spandrel concrete arch bridge is still closed awaiting a rehabilitation. It looks like it might take action form the courts to determine who actually owns this bridge (and thus who is on the line for repairs):

In the plus column, the article talks positively about the historic value of this bridge and the need for a rehab. Lets hope preservation wins out...

Posted August 8, 2016, by Michael Quiet (MQuiet [at] Gmail [dot] com)

News article about the 2016 rehabilitation for this bridge:

Looks like their are some concerns to be had about this process. They'll be increasing the weight limit for the bridge by 2 tons, which while written off by the project manager as not an "appreciable amount" (its a 40% increase), is necessitating a complete rebuild of the floor system, and replacement of the upper chord with wider ones. Also with the process they'll be removing the roof, which presents the opportunity for damage to occur (including possibly the incredibly unique elliptical lateral bracing system).

I did appreciate the fact that they got Jan Lewandoski (who did the '94 rehab and who has a solid reputation for in-kind authentic rehabilitation) to comment for the article, and I share the concerns he mentions with the project.

Posted June 14, 2016, by Michael Quiet (MQuiet [at] Gmail [dot] com)

Like the other bridge on this path, this was bridge was found to be posted "closed to all traffic" as of June 2016, but no barricading to prevent access. Thankfully the trusses are in excellent shape, with no signs of distress. The wooden walkway is spongy / tender though, hence its closing. Still safe to cross though, just watch your step.

Apparently its been like this for a little while:

Posted June 14, 2016, by Michael Quiet (MQuiet [at] Gmail [dot] com)

Found this bridge to be posted "closed to all traffic" as of June 2016, but no barricading to prevent access. Thankfully the trusses are in excellent shape, with no signs of distress. The wooden walkway is spongy / tender though, hence its closing. Still safe to cross though, just watch your step.

Apparently its been like this for a little while:

Posted May 23, 2016, by Michael Quiet (MQuiet [at] Gmail [dot] com)

This long gone bridge indirectly made the local news...evidently the south abutment was still extant, but it collapsed on 5/22/16 with a landslide that is threatening a home.

Posted May 13, 2016, by Michael Quiet (MQuiet [at] Gmail [dot] com)

I was surprised to see this bridge still standing with no sign of construction, as its been on the docket for demolish and replacement for a while now. In looking into it, there seems to have been a proposed change of plans to utilize a new alignment next to the old bridge (link added in sources). The original plan called for demolishing the truss and replacing, which would have required a lengthy detour.

The new alignment is straight and offers better visibility and roadway alignment, but it goes through an existing house, so acquiring the new ROW will take time, with the current projected date being 2018 at the earliest.

If they proceed on this new alignment though, it should open the idea of leaving the existing truss span in place, instead of demolishing. It would be a tough sell, as standard practice is not to bypass/abandon here in VT (I can only think of 1 such example in the state), however this bridge is significant as a example of a multi-span through truss, the likes of which are all but extinct here.

Posted April 26, 2016, by Michael Quiet (MQuiet [at] Gmail [dot] com)

A very interesting read on the history and construction of this bridge, as there was quite a bit of politics that went into building a stone bridge at this era. Also interesting to know that there could have been a Pittsburgh Bridge Co. bridge here had the contract not been overturned!

Posted April 18, 2016, by ArtS (asuckewer [at] knite [dot] com)


As its a modern truss, I'm not sure it really matters but, I don't think we can justify calling it a Pratt through truss. Stylistically, its a bowstring but I doubt it functions as a true bowstring from the old days.

That said, its nice to see the crossing complete and something bowstring-like used.


Art S.

Posted February 29, 2016, by Michael Quiet (MQuiet [at] Gmail [dot] com)

Info about the current rehabilitation project:

Posted December 26, 2015, by Evelyn Saenz (evelynsaenz [at] yahoo [dot] com)

The Bridge is called The Fox Stand Bridge. The approach to the bridge washed out during Hurricane Irene but was replaced soon after.

Posted December 26, 2015, by Evelyn Saenz (evelynsaenz [at] yahoo [dot] com)

The brook, which runs through Wardsboro, is called the Whetstone Brook. This bridge, however, is in Jamaica, not Wardsboro.

Posted July 27, 2015, by Robert Elder

I just had a look at the Crown Point Bridge on Nathan Holth's website. That was one awesome bridge! I missed it...

Posted July 27, 2015, by Anonymous

Plus, the silver railings mitigate the loss of the Crown Point Bridge.