There is so much to consider with this mysteriously powerful photograph. It loads larger than screen size, so you need to scroll to see it all. If you scroll over to the right, and look near the bottom, you can see (far below) a very crude timber bridge over a small waterway. Looking at that little bridge is a key that gives perspective to the main view out onto the railroad bridge, which is the subject of the photo. The railroad bridge is spectacular in height, but also amazing in the degree of deck deterioration.
By the look of it, the railroad rails are resting on standard length ties, and the rest of walkway decking is supported somewhat differently. The overall impression is that the decking and its support look extremely uncertain if you would be thinking about walking across. And yet the walkways are generously wide and running on both sides.
There is something rather odd and ironic about that formally dressed railroad official nonchalantly resting on that sagging railing as if there is nothing to be concerned about. He certainly is close to being the subject of this photo. I wonder if he realized how he looked in that pose. The photographer probably set the whole picture up and made his artistic statement without the individual people in the photograph understanding the photographer’s intent.
Just as ironic are the square wooden trapezoidal towers monumentally marking the gateway to this bridge. Both are cocked off plumb to each side, seeming to contradict the sense of confidence that they were intended to convey. It is interesting that the builder of the bridge was concerned enough about aesthetics to cut the railing posts as trapezoids to visually correlate with the end towers.
You can see a hubbub of men and activity out there a ways where their handcar is standing. I suppose the guy in the foreground is in charge of the work those guys are doing. If you look at the track in the most foreground, you can see some interesting details of a rail joint.
This photo says a lot about the bridge when seen from this view down the deck, but can you imagine all of the work that must have gone on below to nail or bolt together so many timbers? That is where the real maintenance challenge must have been confronted. You can judge the length of this bridge by the view across the valley on the right side. It looks like there is a small building on the right side of the track, at the opposite end of the trestle. I can’t actually see the end of the trestle, but I assume the building is probably on land, and the rest of the landscape suggests the trestle could end at that point. By the look of it, I suppose that would mean that the trestle was maybe 5/8-3/4 mile long.
The photograph:
http://www.shorpy.com/node/2956?size=_original
Early rail roading at best. Notice the lack of tie plates and very light weight iron rail. Large iron spikes would place this around 1860 or before. Rough sawn ties barley square and not a hint of preservitive. Very nice vintage photo. Looking again it seems to be a very broad gauge. Also no gard timbers or rails.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Yes, a very interesting photo of a very early RR bridge. And it appears no connecting bars to bolt rails together where they join. Appears to be somekind of metal piece spiked with 2 spikes at the joint.
Bridge appears to have some age on it when photo was taken. The heavy timbers besides the rails off this end of the bridge look to be in rotting condition.
Paying attention to appearance back then on RR projects seemed to have had some priority such as the uprights on railing, and the entry to bridge posts. They look to have been there for some time with their off plumb stance.
The walkways on either side of the track are unusually wide, almost like it was a double duty bridge of some kind...But then those wide walkways connect to nothing at the ends of the bridge. One walking across would have to get between the rails to exit the bridge end.....Which would tell me perhaps no horse and small cart / buggy was intended to be using it....Looks to be intended for double duty, but I can't figure just what.
Track is rather wavey looking out over the structure. Track gauge...?? Not sure.
But....The photo is a good one and interesting to take a close look at the details. Thanks for sharing it.
Quentin
Not exactly FRA Class 5 track
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This is a great shot with enough information to figure out its history. Right now I'm working on a Trains Map of the Month on the railroad system of 1860, so I have all the research materials handy.
The railroad in question is the South Side Railroad and you keen observers are correct. It's 5 foot gauge.
The South Side was built in 1850 (hence the aged appearance of the wood, went into the Atlantic, Mississippi & Ohio in 1871 and the Norfolk & Western in 1881.
Bill Metzger
Contributing Illustrator, Trains and Classic Trains
Who doesn't love Shorpy, both the miner kid and the site.I check it out daily at lunch. The boss invariably comes by when I'm eating to ask "what are you doing?". I'll either answer "a BLT" or "Shorpy".
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
Here is another photo of the same bridge taken by Timothy O’Sullivan, the same photographer who took the photo I posted above. Both photos were taken in 1865 when the bridge was being repaired after the civil war. I would say that this is taken from the end opposite the viewpoint of the first photo. That building at the opposite end in the first photo appears to be the one in the upper left corner of this photo. According to some other references, that difference in the trestle support structure is related to damage suffered in the civil war.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/High_Bridge_Farmville_Virginia.jpg
This original bridge was replaced in 1914 with an all steel bridge, which still stands, and is being preserved as part of a trail. Here is some information about the old bridge and the current bridge. It says the stone piers of the old bridge still stand alongside the 1914 bridge:
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/railtrails/HighBridgeVA08.html
....The "new high bridge" in place now and about to support a walking /biking trail much resembles the former Western Maryland RR viaduct that crosses a very wide valley, river, rt. 219 {both old and new} and former main line east / west B&O, now CSX...,near Meyersdale, Pa.
It is now supporting the Allegheny trail east / west. I have nice several photos I have taken from the top of that structure.
The bridge is known as the Salisbury Viaduct....Size is very similar. It too was built for double track, but never contained a 2nd track. It now has a great concrete floor, with proper metal / wire mesh side rails. A great view of the CSX main and activity that passes under it.
I remember that bridge and still think it's a shame that NS didn't pick up that line. It was so much better engineered than the original B&O alignment.
Here's the view from above. Nothing but forest. Amazing contrast to the "less wild" views from 1865. The original alignment is slightly visible.
Here's another O'Sullivan image.
And another here along with a modern view. Click to zoom.
Interesting to note the original bridge is described to have a wagon bridge right underneath the track.
It looks this high bridge was originally quite well built. The piers appear to be finely built of coursed stone masonry, and support intricate timber box trusses having an integrated bowstring feature. That is an interesting combination of features. I would think that the trusses could have been adequate without the bowstring or timber arch feature. The boxes alone have their top and bottom chords, so the arch seems redundant. Maybe the combination was just a redundancy fashion of the day. I believe that I have seen that type of timber truss in other old photos. Some of the early arch bar trucks had structural redundancy, suggesting that the designer did not fully comprehend the engineering performance of the structure.
Some of the links mention attempts to burn this bridge to gain an advantage during the civil war. Apparently the missing box trusses were burned, and the rather spindly pilings and timber bents are a temporary replacement to get the bridge back into service. It would be interesting to see what this bridge structure looked like in its final days before being replaced by the steel bridge in 1914.
In the link posted by Zwingle above, you can see the old masonry piers of the original bridge on the right side of the current steel bridge. You can see their tops are considerably lower than the existing bridge, which would account for the height of the original box trusses. The wagon road mentioned in some of the information must be that road and small bridge that can be seen in the far lower right of the photo I posted at the start. However, that little stream is not the Appomattox River that required the railroad high bridge, is it?
Yep; that's the Appomattox River near Farmville, VA. Not very wide (40-50) yards and not very deep (3-5 ft) in normal flow situations. Where I live (Colonial Heights, VA) the Appomattox becomes over 200 yards wide and 20 feet deep until it's confluence with the James River at Hopewell, VA. The bridge needed to be so high, not because of the river, per se, but because of the deep valley the river carved out hundreds of thousands of years ago.
VGN Jess Yep; that's the Appomattox River near Farmville, VA. Not very wide (40-50) yards and not very deep (3-5 ft) in normal flow situations. Where I live (Colonial Heights, VA) the Appomattox becomes over 200 yards wide and 20 feet deep until it's confluence with the James River at Hopewell, VA. The bridge needed to be so high, not because of the river, per se, but because of the deep valley the river carved out hundreds of thousands of years ago.
So that little bridge in the lower right corner of the photo must be the wagon road and bridge over the river that was attempted to be burned during the civil war, but proved to be too wet and green to burn.
Referencing this photo again:
This bridge known as the “High Bridge” on the South Side Railroad is covered in Civil War Railroads by George Abdill. The bridge was fired by the Confederates on 4/7/1865 as they evacuated Petersburg. Four of the box trusses burned before the pursuing Federal forces extinguished the fire. The fill-in spindly trestlework is temporary replacement for the four trusses that were destroyed by the fire. A close-up photo in the book shows the piers to be made of brick, not of stone as mentioned one of the other links to the top post photo. The poles of the trestle rest on horizontal members sitting on the surface of the ground rather than being driven in like piling.
The author shows another bridge with just one of those timber box trusses with the bow or arch timber feature. He says that is a special truss designed by the military for quick implementation, as railroad bridges were being continuously destroyed and rebuilt during the Civil war. He says the timbers in this type of truss were all alike and interchangeable, and could be reversed end for end and still fit together. They could build a bridge in one-third the time with this truss design. They could also run on either the top or on the bottom deck. That is very interesting insight into the reasoning behind the trusses used on the High Bridge. Apparently the expediency of this special truss was attractive for the application of 25 of them to the High Bridge.
In an above post, I wondered what purpose was served by the bowed timber arch feature of these box trusses. Without that feature, this type of timber truss requires iron rods in tension between the top and bottom chords. I don’t know if this military truss was built completely without iron hardware, but I suspect that it did not use iron tension rods. So the arch is the element that creates the triangulation needed to support the span. The rest of the timber box holds the arch in position and compliments the structure.
So this is a highly specialized railroad bridge truss that would be interesting to research further. The citation in the book does not provide a name for this type of truss. This special truss meant that erecting bridge structures could be prosecuted so rapidly that bridge foeman, E. C. Smeed expressed his humorous opinion that he could assemble such a bridge about as fast as a dog could trot.
Here is that other bridge that I mentioned above referenced in George Abdill’s book. It is composed of just one of the unique military designed trusses that is identical to the 25 trusses used on the Farmville High Bridge as they appear in the photo linked to the preceding post. This is the Bull Run Bridge on the Orange & Alexandria RR, one of seven bridges built at this location. Six were destroyed by military action and one was washed out by the stream. Here are two photos:
http://www.cliftonva.us/Portals/0/brigadoon/chap4_officers_fam.jpg
http://southern.railfan.net/ties/1958/58-12/bat5.jpg
Even with these close-up shots, the truss structure is still a bit of a challenge to understand. Certainly there appear to be iron bolts and nuts. It also appears to include a pair of iron rods coming in diagonally from the sides to the top crosswise to the structure near each end. It looks like these may anchor the structure to the masonry piers.
This design is attributed to Herman Haupt, an engineer who designed bridges for railroads in the early 1800s, and for military railroads for the Union Army during the Civil War.
Here is a link that shows many bridge truss designs, but not specifically the one used at Bull Run Bridge and on the Farmville High Bridge. The closest truss design to that one appears to be the Burr Arch Truss. There is also one called the Haupt Truss, but even though the Bull Run and Farmville trusses were designed by Herman Haupt, those are not the same as the Haupt Truss shown here:
http://pghbridges.com/basics.htm
I began this thread with a focus only on the gigantic / mysterious bridge and the haunting quality of the antique photograph of it. This led me to wonder about the nature of the structure supporting the bridge. Discovering that information led to wondering about the interesting timber trusses used for the twenty-five spans of this bridge, and wonder about the apparent redundancy of a box truss combined with an arch. This led to the discovery of the origin and identity of this unique truss design, which was pioneered by Pennsylvania Railroad bridge engineer, Herman Haupt.
This truss design is an outgrowth of the timber lattice truss, which was a box truss reinforced by diagonal latticework bracing. Haupt was also a pioneer in the development of this lattice truss, but the structural shortcomings of the design led him to overcome the deficiency by the addition of an arch. However, the arch and the lattice truss do not simply add their strength together. Instead, the primary load-carrying element is the arch, and the lattice truss merely adds reinforcement to maintain the shape of the arch. So there is no redundancy between the box truss and the arch because they both have different functions. Fundamentally, for the arch to fail, it must buckle, so the lattice truss maintains the shape of the arch all along the arch’s length, thus preventing it from buckling.
Here is a link to an excellent page of details on the Herman Haupt Bridge:
http://www.trainweb.org/horseshoecurve-nrhs/Haupt.htm
In the previous post, I noted the close relationship between the Haupt truss and the Burr truss. Here is a link that explores that relationship in detail. Interestingly, it mentions that the use of a combined arch and truss was viewed with particular contempt by many who did not understand it:
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/burr.htm
The several pic's of the Haupt's arch / truss bridge design is certainly interesting. And the rather close up photo, taken from near one end, seems to display the arch is really a double arch {each side}....With the struts passing between each arch and I assume bolted at that point.
I'm assuming those sizable arches are constructed by laminating wood together to get the desireable size. Similar to many church support designs.
One item I'm wondering about....I see no type of bracing or struts to make sure {looking at it from it's end}, it remains a rectangle shape....as opposed to trying to become a "trapezoid" shape, from wind or other forces.
I'm always amazed to see large pieces {arches}, used in building a structure a hundred and fifty years ago....and wondering just how they were physically put up in place. What kind of machines....?
Quentin,
In the book reference I have, it says these arch trusses were assembled in place, and that block and tackles were used to handle the individual timbers.
Bucyrus Quentin, In the book reference I have, it says these arch trusses were assembled in place, and that block and tackles were used to handle the individual timbers.
....I suppose there would have been some steam powered cranes that were built together on site, and that rotated, but certainly, something like that would not have been available everywhere.
I've seen pic's of some sort of cranes on the top surface of a trestle as it's construction process moved forward....The one I have in mind is an old photo showing building the Western Maryland RR trestle now known as the "Sallisbury Viaduct", located near Meyersdaye, Pa.
Not sure of the age of that structure without looking it up, but I'm sure it was not a hundred and fifty years ago. By the way....it still stands and it is a link in the Allegheny Trail now. It now has a very well designed concrete floor and proper metal gardrail for safety.
Can be seen on Google.
Salisbury Viaduct was built in 1910-12 by the McClintic Marshall Co., a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel. These were the same guys who, 20 or so years later, built the Golden Gate Bridge.
They used an electric crane to hoist the beams in place. 7 workers were killed when the crane failed.
And yes, it has a fine concrete surface and handrails and is a great place to watch the CSX trains below.
Bucyrus Here is that other bridge that I mentioned above referenced in George Abdill’s book. It is composed of just one of the unique military designed trusses that is identical to the 25 trusses used on the Farmville High Bridge as they appear in the photo linked to the preceding post. This is the Bull Run Bridge on the Orange & Alexandria RR, one of seven bridges built at this location. Six were destroyed by military action and one was washed out by the stream. Here are two photos: http://www.cliftonva.us/Portals/0/brigadoon/chap4_officers_fam.jpg http://southern.railfan.net/ties/1958/58-12/bat5.jpg Even with these close-up shots, the truss structure is still a bit of a challenge to understand. Certainly there appear to be iron bolts and nuts. It also appears to include a pair of iron rods coming in diagonally from the sides to the top crosswise to the structure near each end. It looks like these may anchor the structure to the masonry piers. This design is attributed to Herman Haupt, an engineer who designed bridges for railroads in the early 1800s, and for military railroads for the Union Army during the Civil War. Here is a link that shows many bridge truss designs, but not specifically the one used at Bull Run Bridge and on the Farmville High Bridge. The closest truss design to that one appears to be the Burr Arch Truss. There is also one called the Haupt Truss, but even though the Bull Run and Farmville trusses were designed by Herman Haupt, those are not the same as the Haupt Truss shown here: http://pghbridges.com/basics.htm
Just as an historical footnote, prior to taking charge of the Union's military railroads Herman Haupt was chief engineer for the Troy & Greenfield RR and the construction of the Hoosac Tunnel from 1856 to 1861.
mapmaker Salisbury Viaduct was built in 1910-12 by the McClintic Marshall Co., a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel. These were the same guys who, 20 or so years later, built the Golden Gate Bridge. They used an electric crane to hoist the beams in place. 7 workers were killed when the crane failed. And yes, it has a fine concrete surface and handrails and is a great place to watch the CSX trains below.
Yes, since you mention of the electric powered crane and it's failure....and the fatilities, I do remember seeing some pic's and article of that accident.
I've been across that trestle since it now supports the Trail, and it's a great {and beautiful place in Summer}, to photograph and watch the action below it......Lots of power wind mills in the area too to add to photos.
Modelcar mapmaker: Salisbury Viaduct was built in 1910-12 by the McClintic Marshall Co., a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel. These were the same guys who, 20 or so years later, built the Golden Gate Bridge. They used an electric crane to hoist the beams in place. 7 workers were killed when the crane failed. And yes, it has a fine concrete surface and handrails and is a great place to watch the CSX trains below. Yes, since you mention of the electric powered crane and it's failure....and the fatilities, I do remember seeing some pic's and article of that accident. I've been across that trestle since it now supports the Trail, and it's a great {and beautiful place in Summer}, to photograph and watch the action below it......Lots of power wind mills in the area too to add to photos. PS: If "Mapmaker" is {Bill}, the one we see doing the maps in Trains, I enjoy looking at them each month.
mapmaker: Salisbury Viaduct was built in 1910-12 by the McClintic Marshall Co., a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel. These were the same guys who, 20 or so years later, built the Golden Gate Bridge. They used an electric crane to hoist the beams in place. 7 workers were killed when the crane failed. And yes, it has a fine concrete surface and handrails and is a great place to watch the CSX trains below.
PS: If "Mapmaker" is {Bill}, the one we see doing the maps in Trains, I enjoy looking at them each month.
The Haupt arch truss was developed as a timber truss with the design addressing the characteristics of wood. It is a design where the primary load-carrying element is the timber arch, and the latticework maintains the shape of the arch, so the arch can maintain its load carrying ability.
Each of the two arches is split into halves with the latticework sandwiched between. This would make the latticework perform like a web to the arch, similar to the function of a steel web with a steel girder bridge.
A feature of the Haupt arch truss is that it could be set up for travel on either the upper level, the lower level, or both. This photo of the Bull Run Bridge shows it with the tracks running on the lower level, whereas, the Farmville High Bridge has the trains running on the top deck.
Latter day timber truss bridges were assembled by the use of iron bolts, nuts, and incorporated iron and tension rods, but these Haupt trusses were held together with “tree nails.” That is a carryover from shipbuilding where a wooden peg is driven into a hole, and then the peg is expanded by splitting its end and driving a wooden wedge into it.
One problem with this intricate timber construction was its many water-trapping joints, and the rot they encouraged. Even with treated lumber, which was not available then, this type of timber construction exposed to the weather would have been a challenge. Some wood is naturally rot resistant, but may not have other characteristics that are desirable. This problem led to the development of the covered bridge, which basically placed the structure in a protective building with a roof.
Indeed, Haupt was also a designer of covered bridges. But ultimately, timber bridge construction was replaced by iron and steel. It seems that only the basic pile trestle has survived into the modern age as a practical timber railroad bridge. Or generally at least, the trend seems to have moved away from the intricacy and numerous joints of the latticework, and toward heavier timber and piling construction with fewer joints.
I have posted this photo before in a discussion of railroad bridges. This is the first bridge over the Minnesota River at Carver, MN on the Minneapolis & St. Louis RR, built in 1871:
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=32372&Page=1&Digital=Yes&EndDate=1900&Keywords=carver&StartDate=1860&Type=Photo%2CArtPhoto&SearchType=Basic
Here is the Bull Run Bridge with a single Haupt truss for comparison to the M&StL bridge at Carver:
http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/3DFDFE6F-9876-410A-BE5A-3DC4D4C782CF/NA014344.jpg
It seems to me that the principles of the Haupt truss are identical to those of the arched truss on the M&StL bridge. For all I know, Herman Haupt might be responsible for this M&StL bridge design. There was another M&StL bridge at Excelsior, MN that was identical to this Carver Bridge. I have seen a couple others on other railroads, so it must have been a somewhat popular design. It is hard to say where this design originated.
Historical research may dead end before it gets back to the origin of the Carver truss. However, the Haupt designs of just a few years earlier may offer a clue. They seem to portend something like this Carver Bridge—basically seeming to be a refinement of the Haupt arch truss. The refinement was that part of the original Haupt truss design could be cut away and removed because it was not essential to the overall structure.
Like the Bull Run Bridge, this Carver Bridge has arches made as plank laminations with their form being reinforced with timber latticework that makes up the sides of the truss. So, with both bridges, on each side, the latticework acts as a structural web to the arch, which is the primary load-carrying member.
However, the Carver Bridge omits the latticework structure continuing upward from the top of the arch, whereas the Bull Run Bridge extends the latticework on up to a horizontal top plane, and then placing cross timbers in that plane, and thus developing a full box truss.
Also, the Carver Bridge has the arches set higher, so their ends terminate perhaps six feet above the bottom chord of the truss, whereas, the Bull Run Bridge has the ends terminating right at the bottom chord. So the Carver Bridge is made as if you took the Bull Run Bridge, raised its arch up, and chopped off the excess latticework above the arch.
Both bridges have cross-timbers at their tops, although the Carver Bridge has them right on top of the arch, whereas the Bull Run Bridge has them as the top of the box truss. It is difficult to tell from the photo, but it might be that the cross timbers on top of the arches of the Carver Bridge are set in an “X” pattern similar to side latticework of the smaller box truss in the foreground.
Interestingly, the arches of the Carver Bridge have more plank plies toward their centers. You can see those arches getting thicker in height as they rise. This must have looked like one mighty impressive piece of carpentry when it was new. But its life was short, as it was replaced with a new iron bridge about ten years later. And that bridge was replaced by today’s bridge in 1919.
I would guess that before these early timber bridges gave way to newer replacements, they evolved from the use of wooden pegs as fasteners, into the use of bolts, nuts, and washers made of iron and steel. I am guessing that this Carver Bridge in the photo is being built with a considerable quantity of bolts, nuts, and washers. Unlike wooden pegs, the use of bolts with nuts and washers would have worked well to draw those plank laminations of the arch together.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.