One of my most favorite photography sites on the web is a place called "Shorpy", and they constantly have some outstanding OLD RR images from glass plate negatives, along with tons of other good Americana from years past.
They recently added a couple of prints of High Bridge (KY) in it oridginal form, from 1907. Do yourself a favor and open the full sized images..they are huge, and the detail is amazing. check out these two links, and be warned, if you start browsing the site, you will be hooked!
For comparison, here is a link to some stuff I shot at the bridge about a month ago.
http://www.pbase.com/kd4jsl/cs1stdistrict12 (http://www.pbase.com/kd4jsl/cs1stdistrict12)
and here are the Two images from Shorpy
http://www.shorpy.com/node/12361 (http://www.shorpy.com/node/12361)
http://www.shorpy.com/node/12352 (http://www.shorpy.com/node/12352)
Those old shots are very cool, EM! What's that unusual signal just in front of the Roebling stone towers (on both sides). It looks like an old "banjo" signal of some kind---maybe just for the bridge itself.
Somewhere I've seen a series of photos of how the current double track bridge was built around the old bridge, and under traffic. Anyone else see those?
I bet flood insurance would be a bit pricey for those houses 8) I don't know where that spur would've taken you, just off to the left, but it looks like it involved some serious grade.
8)What in the world was the two standards at either end for?
No cable attached?
The first design plan for High Bridge would have had it built as a suspension bridge. The towers where constructed before any other work had begun, and by the time they had been finished, the designers had changed their minds.
The stonework was removed when the bridge was rebuilt (and raised) for double track. Almost no sign of them remains, save for the base of the one on the North side, which is now part of the bridge abutment.
Ron,
This should get you started on High Bridge, but the captions were done by students so some of them are not great.
http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/b/bib/bib-idx?type=boolean&c=eadimages&q1=80PA121&rgn1=entire+record&op2=And&q2=image%2Fjpg&rgn2=entire+record (http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/b/bib/bib-idx?type=boolean&c=eadimages&q1=80PA121&rgn1=entire+record&op2=And&q2=image%2Fjpg&rgn2=entire+record)
8) I am so overwhelmed...
Quote from: butch on February 18, 2012, 11:21:51 PM
Ron,
This should get you started on High Bridge, but the captions were done by students so some of them are not great.
http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/b/bib/bib-idx?type=boolean&c=eadimages&q1=80PA121&rgn1=entire+record&op2=And&q2=image%2Fjpg&rgn2=entire+record (http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/b/bib/bib-idx?type=boolean&c=eadimages&q1=80PA121&rgn1=entire+record&op2=And&q2=image%2Fjpg&rgn2=entire+record)
OK...thanks, Butch. Those were the photos I had seen somewhere before. Not to make too much of the subject (as we tend to do most of the time, however <g>), take a look at this one:
http://kdl.kyvl.org/images/kukav/80pa121/0060.jpg
Obviously the "new" (current) double track bridge was built around and over the old single track bridge--under traffic too. That's a considerable elevation difference between the two track levels, however. It's been a long, long time since I've actually been on the ground at High Bridge, but how did they reconcile (or rather, make up) the elevation differences on the approaches on either side--again, under traffic?
If memory serves me correctly, the profile on both sides of the bridge is about .5 percent---descending to the bridge on one side, and ascending on the other, of course. That 1906 CS track chart you recently sent me (thanks again!) doesn't show a grade profile, so I can't make a 1906 to today comparison.
The alignment on both sides of High Bridge doesn't reveal any radical curvature. Did the removal of the old, lower approaches to the bridge result in cuts that were then filled?
Sorry....I'm asking too many questions about something that doesn't really matter. :)