Why is or was the lift bridge constructed at the W side of the water crossing instead of the middle of the Navigable Channel? It was discussed in a couple of other forums RE: Ghost Lift Bridges. I know of a couple of bridges that were built on the NYC operated once because they were required by coast gaurd to build them because the waterway could be navigated.
It’s entirely possible that the channel has shifted in the century plus since the bridge was built. If the original users were canal craft, the channel would have been close to shore. Now that channel has silted up and the center of the flow has deepened. Problem for vessels with tall masts, but not for modern powered craft or barges.
Note from the article that CSX had flat denied access to the film crew. That director “has retained a lawyer.” Maybe he should have done that before filming started.
Chuck
I bet the bridge Is posted no trespassing and I will bet that if neither of the two trains that passed didn’t notify CSX of the trespassers they will be found guilty of aiding the death.
It has really bugged me that virtually every news item has called this a trestle. A trestle does not have any structure above rail level. One can debate whether the steel deck plate girders to the north should be called a trestle; but there is no disagreement that that the impact occurred within the confines of a through truss span, which probably obscured the engineer’s view.
What makes you think that it is NOT over the “Navigable Channel”? The Navigable Channel is not always in the center of the waterway. I grew up on the Columbia River on the Oregon/Washington border, it is often more than a mile wide, with the Navigable Channel(AVG 40-43’ depth) often close enough to shore that the channel markers ARE mounted on the shore.
Doug
Doug,
In the overhead view of the site the water under the bascule is mostly sandbars - not a suitable channel for anything but swamp buggies.
ACY,
Unfortunately, there are those who write for the media who assume that any bridge with rails on it is a trestle. A particularly revolting case appeared in, of all places, Trains, about half a century ago. Every bridge caption said, “Trestle,” even though anyone with one functional eyeball would have seen deck girders or, in one case, a steel arch, under the 762mm gauge rails. The real kicker was that there was LOTS of real wooden trestlework - but not a single photo of same.
Chuck
Hi Chuck, Thank You, I have not seen the overhead shot that shows the sandbars. After almost Fifty years on the water, I have seen more people standing in knee-deep water a 1/4 mile from the nearest shore, with baffled looks on their faces, than I want to think about. It never ceases to amaze me how many people will spend tens of Thousands of dollars on a Beautiful Boat, but don’t spend 10 minutes learning what any of the navigational aids mean. So many just assume “I’m in the MIDDLE of the river, there MUST be PLENTY of Water”. We always refered to these as the “See water and GO” types.
After seeing so many WITH boats, make assumptions like that, it wouldn’t be hard to understand someone on a RR Forum making a similar mistake.
My Apologies to the original Poster.
What, railroad TRESTLES (and other asstd bridges) are NOT Good places to play, walk, fish and Film Movies? Who’da Thunk?
Doug
ps, for some really cheep Entertainment, get yourself a lawn chair, a cold six pack and a Public Boatramp, hard entertainment to beat at any price.
The course of rivers and their navigable channels change over time - in some cases depositing land from one state to another if the river was accurately and specifically defined in the state boundry