IMG_20241227_110948703_HDR.jpg

If you look close. Not really noticeable in this pic, the arches are actually different sizes. There is a construction joint the splits the bridge east and west. Have never seen anything on a widening. nor have I seen any reason for building it split. I noticed that joint when working under that bridge on the hi way. took quite a few shots of it

NVSrr1500 said:

If you look close. Not really noticeable in this pic, the arches are actually different sizes. There is a construction joint the splits the bridge east and west. Have never seen anything on a widening. nor have I seen any reason for building it split. I noticed that joint when working under that bridge on the hi way. took quite a few shots of it

Click to expand...

I have to look in my "Triumph" series book, but i believe the bridge was first built for two tracks. And this side included provision for widening, which was already planned. This bridge was built to replace an iron wrought style, which itself was already feeling the strain of heavier steam locomotives. The idea was to build new bridge (current one) alongside the older to prevent from traffic disruptions. Sorry for scant information, but I'm just writing from memory. It's been many years since i've read about it. You can see that idea in a very similar bridge just east of Lancaster. That bridge which goes over Conestoga River has those sticking out stones, to tie in widening section, which was never implemented. Pennsylvania Railroad back in the day was building stuff to last, and during that time mainline widening program was going on throughout the mainline all the way to Pittsburgh (late XIX, early XX century).