|Bridge Name||Facility Carried / Feature Intersected||Location||Structure Type||Construction Date and Builder/Engineer|
Chambers Ford Bridge
||380th Street Over Iowa River||Rural: Tama County, Iowa||Metal 9 Panel Pin-Connected Pratt Through Truss, Fixed and Approach Spans: Metal Stringer (Multi-Beam), Fixed||1890 By Builder/Contractor: Clinton Bridge and Iron Works of Clinton, Iowa and George E. King Bridge Co. of Des Moines, Iowa|
|Rehabilitation Date||Main Span Length||Structure Length||Roadway Width||Main Spans||Approach Spans||NBI Number|
|1938||159 Feet (48.5 Meters)||345 Feet (105.2 Meters)||15 Feet (4.6 Meters)||2||2||316660|
This bridge has a somewhat unusual history. Its westernmost span was built in 1890 by the Clinton Bridge and Iron Works. Apparently at this time a crude approach system was also built. By 1903 that approach system deteriorated and another Pratt truss span was built by the George E. King Bridge Company. In 1938 unknown rehabilitation took place. One of the approach spans is resting on what looks like an end post or vertical member salvaged from some other truss bridge.
The 1903 span is a traditionally composed example of a pin-connected Pratt truss bridge. It appears to retain good historic integrity. The 1890 span is in sharp contrast highly unusual and untraditional in many aspects. It includes sway bracing that at the bottom has a pipe running between vertical members, which is a highly unusual detail. Also unusual is the way the floor beams are connected to the truss. They are not hung from hangers as was typical at this time. Instead, special pins just for the floor beams (separate of the bottom chord connection pins) are built into the vertical members so the floor beams are essentially pin-connected to the truss. The bridge does not use the traditional cover plate for the top chord and end post, and instead has v-lacing on the top, giving the bridge a distinctive appearance.
The bridge rests on riveted caissons (sometimes called Lally columns). Under the deck at the caissons that hold both truss spans in the middle of the river is an unusual bracing (partly falling off) that looks like a portal brace, but appears to be some sort of brace for under the bridge. It is an unusual detail of unknown purpose.
This highly rare and significant bridge has been abandoned. It should be given a high preservation priority, whether it is preserved here, or relocated and reused elsewhere. Both spans would make great bridges for pedestrian use on trails and in parks. However, Tama County has said they want to replace this bridge. If the replacement project were to include the relocation and preservation of this bridge's spans in a new location that would be fine. However it is likely that the county plans to demolish this bridge. This would be a devastating loss to Iowa. It is unclear if the county even considered rehabilitation of this bridge for continued vehicular use.
Information and Findings From Iowa's Historic Bridge Inventory
Discussion of Bridge
In April 1890 the Tama County Board of Supervisors received a petition from S. Wyman and other citizens of Salt Creek Township for a permanent bridge over the Iowa River southeast of Chelsea. The supervisors
visited the proposed site, known locally as the Chambers Ford, the following month. They agreed to construct an iron bridge at this point if the citizens would "procure a right-of-way for said bridge and build all necessary trestle
work on said right-of-way and all approaches to said bridge." The County Auditor subsequently solicited bids for the bridge's erection, and on July 11th a contract was let to the Clinton Bridge and Iron Works of Clinton, Iowa, for a
single-span, pin-connected Pratt truss. Apparently completed later that year, the Chambers Ford Bridge functioned in place with only maintenance-related repairs for ten years. By the turn of the century, however, the original timber
trestle approach that the local citizens had built on one end had deteriorated beyond the point of repair. In September 1902 the board of supervisors inspected the bridge and met with representatives of bridge firms at nearby Belle
Plaine. A contract for the repair work, which included the erection of a new Lackawanna and Jones and Laughlin, King erected the new span during the fall and winter of 1902-03. Work was completed by April 1903, whereupon the county
issued a warrant to King in the amount of $3,987. Since that time, the two-span structure has carried vehicular traffic in essentially unaltered condition. The south span is part of the original 1890 structure built by the Clinton
Bridge and Iron Works, while to the north is the span built by the George E. King Bridge Company in 1903.
Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: Yes
Click on a thumbnail or gallery name below to visit that particular photo gallery. If videos are available, click on a video name to view and/or download that particular video.
Original / Full Size Photos
|A collection of overview and detail photos. For the best visual immersion and full detail, or for use as a desktop background, this gallery presents the photos for this bridge in the original digital camera resolution.|
Mobile Optimized Gallery
|A collection of overview and detail photos. View the photos for this bridge in a reduced size which is useful for mobile/smartphone users, modem
(dial-up) users, or those who do not wish to wait for the longer
download times of the full-size photos. Alternatively, view this photo gallery using a popup slideshow viewer (great for mobile users) by clicking the link below.
Browse Gallery With Popup Viewer
© Copyright 2003-2014, HistoricBridges.org. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: HistoricBridges.org is a volunteer group of private citizens. HistoricBridges.org is NOT a government agency, does not represent or work with any governmental agencies, nor is it in any way associated with any government agency or any non-profit organization. While we strive for accuracy in our factual content, HistoricBridges.org offers no guarantee of accuracy. Information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. Information could include technical inaccuracies or errors of omission. Opinions and commentary are the opinions of the respective HistoricBridges.org member who made them and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, including any outside photographers whose images may appear on the page in which the commentary appears. HistoricBridges.org does not bear any responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of this or any other HistoricBridges.org information. Owners and users of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org information.