The Trout (Carlton) Brook Bridge

[John McNamara]

A friend and I were recently discussing the bridge over Trout Brook (also called Carlton Brook). Some people say that it was 90 feet long. Others say that the clear span was only 40 feet and that there were two 15-foot approach spans at the ends. This would make the total length 70 feet. Trusting the second source, I said 70 feet in the latest WW&F Newsletter, but maybe that is wrong. Sources for various numbers (90, 70, or other) are welcome.

Another question about this bridge concerns the failure mode.Pictures in Two Feet to Tidewater suggest that the engine went through the deck, but others suggest that the train derailed, striking and fatally weakening the bridge. Again, sources of these and other stories are welcome.

-John

[Philip Marshall]

Moody makes several references to a postcard view of the "Masons' Wreck" that was printed in Germany and supposedly widely distributed, but I don't believe I've ever seen this picture (unless of course it's one of the photos on pages 96-97 of Two Feet to Tidewater). Perhaps this could shed additional light both on the design of the trestle and the mode of the derailment? At any rate, the bridge was supposed to have been repaired relatively quickly, so how badly was the structure actually damaged?

-Philip Marshall

[Fred Morse]

I think the distance across the stream right now, with no bridge abutments, and normal erosion is 90 Ft. Probably 70 Ft. is nearer the distance.

[Wayne Laepple]

Looking at the photos in "Two Feet to Tidewater" on pages 96 and 97, it appears that the span of the bridge at Carlton Brook is less than the length of the three-door baggage mail car, which I believe was 46 feet. So the span of the actual bridge may be 40 feet, more or less. It also appears that the approach to the bridge, at least on the north side, may have been timber cribbing filled with rock, although what appears to be cribbing may also be ties and other timber unloaded there to aid in the recovery of the wreckage. In any case, it looks as though the north approach is shorter than the south approach. If the bridge's span is 40 feet and the distance between the bridge seats is 70 feet, the approaches must total 30 feet.

[Philip Marshall]

I haven't seen John's piece in the newsletter yet, but is the plan for the new bridge that it be a replica of the original bridge?

-Philip Marshall

[Mike Fox]

Philip,

Latest things being tossed around are a reconstructed bridge like it was, or using the 1920's era turntable beams we have on had since they themselves are historic and could have theoretically been used for a bridge replacement had the line survived.

[Philip Marshall]

Thanks, Mike. Either way, it sounds like it's going to be quite a project!

-Philip

[Bill Fortier]

For reference, looking south.

[John Kokas]

Although I can see the historical merit in reconstructing the bridge as close to original as possible, I would caution that bridge design standards are more strict than 80 years ago.  Secondly, I would suggest that we examine methods to utilize steel pilings and supports as much as possible since they require much less maintenance and would hold up against any future ice jams or flooding far better than wood.  Most wood trestles, (in public use), require at least an annual or bi-annual inspection (depending on state) by a certified bridge inspector.  Have we considered the costs that would be associated with this?  It isn't cheap.......  Also, how would it affect our insurance rates?  If we can paint / camouflage the supporting structure to look like wood, I think we would be much better off.  Just throwing this out there for consideration in our decision making process.

[Jason M Lamontagne]

Railroad bridge requirements fall under federal jurisdiction, even for us.  Our current bridge has to meet these requirements, which include an annual inspection by a certified bridge inspector.  One of our members does this by trade for several railroads in the northeast, and offers his services to is for free.  He also performs the necessary bridge engineering work and has generated our bridge program manuals for us.  He is a great resource, and had expressed eagerness to get started on Trout Brook Bridge.

See ya
Jason

[Steve Smith]

I presume the state will require us to take various environmental protection measures during actual construction of the bridge. Are the details for that known yet?

[John Kokas]

Thanks for the clarification Jason.  I had a feeling that FRA was going to be involved but I wasn't sure enough to quote line and verse.  In PA it can be FRA, PennDOT, or PUC depending on type of use.  I know one local shortline with three wooden trestles that has to have annual inspections.  This last year their inspection bill was over $18,000.  If we have someone who is already certified and wants to do the project "pro bono", I'm all for it!  We will have to plan down the road for the day when that person retires and can no longer be the certifying official.

In the meantime, I'm really happy to hear we have someone.  Just one question, when do we turn him loose to start designing the bridge.  This is a long lead item and will also require environmental permits (another agonizingly slow process), the sooner we get started the better.

[Wayne Laepple]

Unless I am mistaken, the individual who inspects and advises the WW&F is the same individual who inspected the three wooden trestles on the line you mentioned, John, at least while I was running that line. He is quite competent and is young enough that he'll be around for a long time.