Great composition and interesting history. Those are impressive bridges. It is interesting how some bridges have guardrails (just inside of the running rails) and some do not. I suppose policies change through the years and with different personnel.
|
| Posted by pjflstc on November 4, 2014 | |
I admire the design and structure of railroad bridges & trestles in the late 1800's/early 1900's. Especially when I see the deterioration of our nations highway bridges that were designed & built in the 1950's/60's. If an engineer back in the late 1800's could design a bridge still in use 135 years later, why can't the D.O.T. design one to last more than 50-60 years on our nations highways? Today, D.O.T. bridges are designed & built to the bare minimum acceptable to perform the job and still be the lowest bidder. But, are they really saving money when they have to rebuild it 50-60 years later? I enjoy studying the construction used by railroads many years ago. Back when "yeah, that will more than do the job" was the standard. Will the reinforced concrete support columns last as long as cut stone? No, but they cost less. Or do they?
|
I don't expect to ever see construction with the long-term, functional plus aesthetic appeal exemplified by structures of an earlier era. Witness PRR Chief Engineer "Stone" Brown's masonry bridges such as Rockville that have withstood the test of time and elements (with reinforcement at some locations). Short-term economics has devastated the appeal and seems to have largely eradicated the perspective of "building for the ages" that once prevailed. Even the changes in signal systems illustrate this trend toward spartanism - holding no more appeal than a modern traffic light installation; although the earlier cantilevers and signal bridges were of the material of the times, and reflective of an era when the field of vision from the cab was frequently different. I guess the bottom-line is that some things improve and some suffer in the inexorable march of progress.
|
|