05-23-2010, 03:50 PM
Sumpter250 Wrote: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 ?
Pete this would be the one for you its 26'6.5" and quite flimsey looking called the Eureka Bridge on the cl site and three drawings to boot.
jim