Carpentersville, Illinois, ex-C&NW, 1870s vintage, relocated at least once:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ ... story.html



More info:

https://industrialscenery.blogspot.com/ ... er-in.html

http://www.johnmarvigbridges.org/Carpen ... ridge.html

My impression from reading this and "flying the Google Earth/Maps Drone" is that IF a serious, well-intentioned proposal is floated, the truss could be relocated to an adjacent parking lot temporarily for dismantling for removal by truck.......... but te priority is the section already fallen in the Fox River.

"No thanks" was the response from an IRM official. Although there is a 200 foot gap in the roadbed at the Kishwaukee River (a large creek at this point), crossing it, or using this bridge to cross it, appears to not be a priority. The location is less than 11 miles from the Carpentersville bridge.

Maybe IRM has either run out of space to store an other piece of infrastructure that will never be used; or theyve run low on funds and can't afford to even consider it. Heck it's a bridge... not like they have any great news for one.
That all said what is even going on at IRM? I noticed the blog hasn't been updated in over a year. They spent all that money in what 2016/17 to buy and ship a turntable to the museum, and announced planning for a future roundhouse; but I don't recall hearing anything anything about those since. Not even a fundraising request via email in the years since. Have they given up on those expansion dreams like the PA RR Museum Strausburg?

I suspect this description has a lot to do with it.



Pedestrian use with minimal repairs does not bode well for service as a railroad structure.

There are still two western approach spans surviving from the ICRR's 1872 Mississippi River "Keystone Column" bridge at Dubuque, IA. One is over the Heritage Trail (former CGW right of way), the other over the arm of Bergfeld Pond in the Dubuque Industrial Center West. Both are now pedestrian bridges.

I believe that one of the spans had been used for some years on a gravel road as a vehicular bridge over a small creek until it was deemed unable to support increasingly large agricultural equipment and related trucks. The increasing weight of trains reduced it to farm traffic, then the increasing weight of tractors doomed it to foot traffic. Should humans become bio-engineered to weigh about the same as an International KB-8 truck, the span will become a lawn ornament.

The Carpentersville bridge in this post is roughly equivalent. It may be historic, but it is of limited utility value.

I'm not going to make such presumptions without facts at hand. For all we know, that description simply reflects a lack of imagination on the part of the writer/speaker. An enormous number of variables enter the picture. Is it steel or wrought iron? What was the design rating for the bridge? Has there been any deterioration besides the ties? Did they only rule out road vehicle traffic because of the width?

If, like most excursion lines, you have no plans to put the latest ES44AC locomotives and 286,000-lb. freight cars on the bridge, it might be a feasible span for operation. There are indeed somewhat similar bridges of similar vintage (or older) on excursion lines today, but no one's running new six-axle diesels over the wooden covered bridge at Clark's Trading Post, either.......

Neat old bridge. Could probably be disassembled reverse as it was assembled. that is piece-by-piece. But that still requires a commitment and expensive manpower and equipment.

Ned P.E.

All in good time. IRM is still working through the items decided on in the 1980s. For up to date reporting, I suggest you check out the blog run by the father and son team Randy and Frank Hicks at: https://hickscarworks.blogspot.com/

The designer of this bridge was concerned with its appearance. He designed a pair of arches, all latticed together, above the entrance to the bridge. Then at a later date someone came along with a piece of channel to reenforcement this area. The picture is not real clear, but it looks like a lot of that channel has been added at various places on this bridge. Also the floor beams look like retrofits. My guess is that a lot of reenforcing has been added to this bridge over its life.

Given the current FRA requirements for bridge design, inspection, and maintenance, the cost of putting this bridge back in service could be significant, or maybe not even possible. If I were looking for a bridge this size to reuse on a railway, I would be looking for something 60 or 70 years newer.

Too Bad. I actually worked across it a couple times in my brakeman days.