The Red Bridge - Part 2

[shiellb]

Good afternoon all.  I now know why covered bridges are covered.  This time I would like to know why the bridge engineers built the bridge the way they did.  A photo of this "Red Bridge" can be found at: www.britishcolumbia.com/regions/towns/?townID=3415   Most covered bridges have a roof.  Why does this bridge not have a roof?  Thanks.  Shiellb

[ndbprr]

It might have had one at some point.  Who knows?  It appears that the builders were more concerned with protecting the structural integrity of the bridge members with sacraficial siding to me.

[MisterBeasley]

Is this a spot where the river runs through a narrow cut in the mountains to the left?  If so, the river valley might be a real wind tunnel.  The bridge sides would provide shelter for anyone on the bridge.

Forgive me for being a crusty old New Englander, but if it doesn't have a cover on it, it's not really a covered bridge, is it?

[selector]

Below is a link to some information, although I don't know about the claim that it is the only covered bridge remaining in Canada.  It the claim is for railway bridges, perhaps they are correct, but I know for a fact that there are other covered bridges, many in use.

 

http://www.greatnorthernempire.net/index2.htm?GNEBridgesBC.htm

 

[tomikawaTT]

Well, the trusses are roofed over, even if the floor isn't.

I'll admit that, to me, a covered bridge is one that has a complete structural enclosure and the trusses visible inside.  Seems to me that the Red Bridge could have had a complete roof at a considerable saving of material (siding used on the floor side of the trusses.)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[selector]

How would they have cleared it of a substantial snow fall?  Keremeos isn't exactly AZ.  I can't tell if the roadbed is open framing or if it would accumulate some snow.  I'll hope that it was open.  Otherwise a Russell plow would have meant costly repairs to the boarding.