Why not add this bridge detail?

[nachoman]

I saw this today on a railroad bridge in Tempe Arizona - 98 years old and still in use!!! Thinking about it - many bridges, tunnels, and large civil engineering projects have construction dates placed on them. It would make a great detail for a model bridge.

[P5se Camelback]

That's a nice detail ... and a fine observation, Kevin! And you are right about including the date as part of the design of all kinds of structures. From bridges to office buildings, it has been convention to include the construction year over the entryway or on the cornice of a building or at the entry to a bridge for centuries!

[nachoman]

I just noticed the date can only be read when inside the truss of the bridge. From outside the truss, it is backwards!

[P5se Camelback]

is it at all possible that, due to the slope of the end supports of the bridge, the date is high enough that it is not really all that visible from outside the bridge and conversely, due to the slope of the end supports of the bridge, the date cut into that horizontal plate is highly readable from inside, which is why we have the unusual situation where one must be within the confines of the bridge to be in a position to learn its construction date?

A bit too early in the morning for such etherial contemplation? Ah ... yeah, maybe so. I think I'll go back to bed!

[RRManiac]

How difficult might that be in N scale there doesn't seem to be much room between the trusses to maneuver much of anything.

Looks like a very interesting little detail. Do they put that sort of thing on tunnel portals? Perhaps dams, towers, and the like? Just got me thinking because I was watching something on the Hoover Dam, but I don't think there is a finish date on it. Hmmmm. Something to get you thinking.

[Russ Bellinis]

A lot of concrete tunnel portals have the date stamped or cast into the top of the portals. Obviously blasted rock portals don't have such a thing. The date on the bridge looks like it was cut or stamped out of the steel, so I suspect that it was done while the bridge was still in pieces waiting for assembly.

[poliss]

1912, that bridge is just a baby. Take a look at this one with the date of 1869. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fototime.com/%7B05F77587-5718-471A-8382-3491B8C6780C%7D/origpict/Ouseburn%20Viaduct%20A.jpg">http://www.fototime.com/%7B05F77587-571 ... ct%20A.jpg</a><!-- m -->
Pic of the bridge from a bit further away. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fototime.com/%7BA9BFA91F-F2E1-4781-9A1B-436593533850%7D/origpict/Ouseburn%20Viaduct%20C.jpg">http://www.fototime.com/%7BA9BFA91F-F2E ... ct%20C.jpg</a><!-- m -->
The bridge/viaduct is on the East Coast Mainline in Newcastle. It's in full time use and carries express trains from London to Edinburgh and other freight and passenger traffic.
Stephenson's High Level Bridge, also in Newcastle,was opened in 1849 but I can't find a photo with the date on it.

[doctorwayne]

Central Valley included that detail on their truss bridge:


Wayne

[Justinmiller171]

Wayne, Does that bridge say "Made in 1832", I wouldn't walk across that bridge let alone be in a train going across it!

But wait, we didn't even have trains in 1832, my eyes must be failing me

[P5se Camelback]

Wayne, Does that bridge say "Made in 1832", I wouldn't walk across that bridge let alone be in a train going across it!

Now wait just a minute ... there are quite a few bridges still in use that are over 173 years old that are still in use! The Frankford Avenue Bridge, also known as the Pennypack Creek Bridge, the Holmesburg Bridge, and the King's Highway Bridge, was uilt in 1697 in the Holmesburg section of Northeast Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is the oldest surviving roadway bridge in the United States. If you have ever driven north out of the Frankford section of the city on US Route 13, you have driven across it!

But wait, we didn't even have trains in 1832, my eyes must be failing me

I beg to differ! A quick check on the history of the "John Bull" (to confirm my sometimes failing memory) reveals that it was built by the
Robert Stephenson and Company, a locomotive manufacturing company in the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The company was founded in 1823. It was the first company set up specifically to build railway engines.

What follows is a short (and incomplete) timeline of the locomotive ...
... June 18, 1831: The John Bull is constructed by Stephenson and Company in England.
... July 14, 1831: The John Bull departs Liverpool aboard the ship Allegheny bound for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
... September 4, 1831: The John Bull arrives in Philadelphia.
... September 15, 1831: The John Bull makes its first runs in New Jersey under its own power.
... November 12, 1831: Robert Stevens hosts a group of New Jersey politicians on a series of trial runs pulled by the John Bull.

So, you see, we DID, in fact, not only have trains in 1832, we had steam trains in 1832! Actually, many of the earlier "railways" had wooden rails and were known as "gravity railroads," as they were powered by Sir Isaac's dicovery. One of the earliest of those was the Mauch Chunk Railroad, built between Summit Hill and Mauch Chunk, Pennsylvania in 1827. (Mauch Chunk is now Jim Thorpe and home to an operating tourist steam train pulled by a (blue) Pacific.) The line was built as a gravity railway to haul anthracite coal from the mines down the mountainside to the Lehigh River and was the first railroad of this type.

[Justinmiller171]

Ah, thanks Bil, I should check my facts before posting!

[nachoman]

Not to hijack my own thread, but speaking of old bridges...

The Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad's Lobato Trestle caught fire earlier this summer, and burned the wooden ties and distorted some of the steel girders. I am not sure when the current bridge was built or last overhauled, but the right of way dates to the 1880s, and the current bridge has existed with minimal changes since at least the 1920s. This week an engineering report was released documenting the analysis and recommended repairs to the bridge. In addition to the repairs and replacement of the damaged girders, the analysis determined the bridge design is insufficient to safely handle the weight of the locomotives currently used. I am quite curious how they find the money to repair the bridge and what they decide to do, and how they eventually strengthen the original design.

Seeing that 1912 bridge made wonder if even in perfect condition if the loads or conditions have changed to make the design insufficient. I did post a full photo of the bridge in another thread <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3343">viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3343</a><!-- l -->, and noted that the bridge piers had been changed from steel to concrete sometime in the 1990s. When the bridge was built, the Salt River was a perennial river that was subject to annual floods. The base flow of the river was probably such that it flowed under a single span and the piers were high and dry except during floods. By the 1980s, the river was only a dry riverbed, and flood releases only happened about every 5 years. Then, in the 1990s, the city of Tempe decided to turn the river bed into a lake, and the piers would be continuously submerged. I assume the change to concrete piers was necessary for the construction of the lake.

[P5se Camelback]

Sorry, Kevin ... I guess we did stray a bit!

I think I heard about that bridge fire on the news a while back. Wasn't there talk that it might not have started from "natural" causes? Have they found out any more about that?

But all that about the bridge design being "insufficient to safely handle the weight of the locomotives currently used" ... just how long had the "locomotives currently used" been traversing that bridge, and how many of those self-same locomotves have fallen to the dry river bed below due to the "insufficiency" of the bridge design?

Just wondering if we're headed for another abandoned line ... due to the cost to restore the bridge to operating condition!

[Gary S]

Hmmmm.... guess we need DocWayne to weigh in on this one. Were there any railroad bridges like that one in 1832? Did the EG&E predate the Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad?

[nachoman]

Sorry, Kevin ... I guess we did stray a bit!

I think I heard about that bridge fire on the news a while back. Wasn't there talk that it might not have started from "natural" causes? Have they found out any more about that?

Just wondering if we're headed for another abandoned line ... due to the cost to restore the bridge to operating condition!

If you read on the narrow gauge discussion boards, that tend to be full of conspiracy folks, there was tons of speculation from fireworks to vandalism. But the fire investigation ruled out all those possibilities, and said the most likely cause of fire was the train. Given that trestle fires caused by steam locomotive embers are common throughout railroading history, this sounds like the most likely scenario. The origin of the alternative causes was due to several people hearing an loud explosion. The "explosion" likely was the bridge structure buckling under the heat (one of the bents is actually pulled away from its footing).

The cost of the bridge replacement will be several million dollars. Several hundred thousand will come from an insurance policy, some from private donations, but the remainder will have to come from the owners of the railroad, who happen to be the states of Colorado and New Mexico. Being an election year, obtaining public funding for such a project may be tricky and probably won't happen until next year. Don't fret, though, because the railroad is a not-for-profit operation and owned by the states, it is unlikely the whole thing will be shut down. In the meantime, they are bussing people the few miles around the damaged bridge, and other than that it is business as usual.

Of course, I am not an authority on this, I am just relaying what I read online and in the publicly available engineering reports.