05-23-2010, 02:22 PM
Jim,
Thanks for the "congress" reference. I may not use that as my bridge will be narrower, and probably not as heavily built.
Looking at the various photos, I suspect the steel ( possibly iron ) supports were the original, and were boxed in. It's hard to tell for sure from the photos, but it would make more sense that wood coverings were removed, than stone footings being replaced.
The logic behind this ? ...There was probably more maintainence required of wood coverings, than painting the iron/steel supports, and more than likely far less maintainence required for stone, so why replace stone ?
Thanks for the "congress" reference. I may not use that as my bridge will be narrower, and probably not as heavily built.
Looking at the various photos, I suspect the steel ( possibly iron ) supports were the original, and were boxed in. It's hard to tell for sure from the photos, but it would make more sense that wood coverings were removed, than stone footings being replaced.
The logic behind this ? ...There was probably more maintainence required of wood coverings, than painting the iron/steel supports, and more than likely far less maintainence required for stone, so why replace stone ?
We always learn far more from our own mistakes, than we will ever learn from another's advice.
The greatest place to live life, is on the sharp leading edge of a learning curve.
Lead me not into temptation.....I can find it myself!
The greatest place to live life, is on the sharp leading edge of a learning curve.
Lead me not into temptation.....I can find it myself!