This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. + Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. About Google Book Search Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web at |http : //books . google . com/ Sci\er?;0i Hg Lift Bi'id^es 3^ari3art CoIIrgr ILiUrarn raoM i^ W}^^ K i ^3 [■^■jJMtjpEAi 3l| 1 e^W!"^' '-^-^ 1 [O^ ^^^ S m^j i ^ ^^^P?^ ^^ 1 B WisSm^lS^M ' -yJ^,T',*'i^ B^^^& »>! ^•rj.-|?^ ■??;«*«} Av;„.. y^^^ '^:m #^i?Xy- :^ 'i: >* \. ■-*^ir^:' s:^^' 'kj^-m ^^(r':.•^ .:;>:^;i;^:in.^?r^«;^^5^'^^ v«i»^r-:*=.\ i^^:&^^^ l^arbart (ToUrsf iLtlirarii I i \:^ ^I'lX- ^^-SK^iSK ^ M.€ '^"M ^/ if« ■^V^V-fd... 3.;i;-v- -f'^- r-s' 1h'-.i.'»--A^/:?r- /d*Jt;.ii"'v' .:!!,i;^«c.^ .::-^?^^'" ^"i ^fi* ^".^^ •^>-v-^7^^'^ -TiS^W '^^^^^^i'M^'}'-^. ■5Bfe;*;i^.^r :f J :-:•;?.;■ ^;v;,^ Bl^^':':^^:^^'^i^^^TS^!- .:v»*5^^i?^' ■m. H> J' ■■■-,'- ^Ky'v:>^v:i i^5a>.-4 ''*&^;^;.;: ^^«lil»^ .,-i0';--^>' ■:-'iy-._ ^51_J couftnttweieur ■is^7?9. ^N.-^'j-^'^-rKs-^:??-.'- • ^ ,. ; ?-?y ? w{-t.:.-tv ■ ■ ■ u ■ v^?; ^yyNV-y.:!^^;'-?<>s?:N'-q 14 Comparison of Trunnion and Roiiing Lift Bridges TRUNNION ROLLING LIFT GAIN BY USING ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Movable Span 193' 0" 170 0" 23' ' 11.9 Per Cent Leverage of Counterweight 14' 0" 18' 6" 4' 6" 32.0 " Leverage of Anchorage - 27' 6' 28' 0" 0' 6" 1.8 " Amount of Steel - 625 Tons 475 Tons 150 Tons 24.0 " Amount of Counterweight 365 Cu. Yds. 200 Cu. Yds. 165 Cu. Yds. 45.0 " Weight of Counterweight 170 Lbs. Per Cu. Ft. 140 Lbs. Per Cu. Ft. 30Lbs.PerCu. Ft.17.6 " Weight of Machinery - 169,500 Lbs. 75,000 Lbs. 94,500 Lbs. 56.0 " Depth of Pit - 10.25' 10.00' 0.25' 2.4 " Concrete in Substructure 2,600 Cu. Yds. 2,400 Cu. Yds. 200 Cu. Yds. 7.7 '' Friction Sliding Rolling Power and Durability Construction - Complicated— many parts Simple — One Part Simplicity and Reliability TRUNNION BRIDGE. Counterweight being suspended by trunnions has no value whatever as bracing and because of its shifting movement it cuts out essential bracing, impairing the rigidity of the bridge. ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE. Counterweight being rigidly fixed to the movable structure, adds to the strength and rigidity of the bracing. 15 Comparative plats showing obstructions to navigation in the Chicago River caused by old center pier swing bridges and the improved channel provided by the use of Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges v/wiag Bridget ALL TRAFFIC BLOCKADED BY A VESSEL JAMMED IN THE NARROW PASSAGE. Considering the fact that the hinged pivot or trunnion bascule bridge was originally designed to span moats only, it adapted itself well to fulfill some of the essential requirements of a movable bridge crossing small navigable waterways. The piers were placed upon the sides of the channel, giving one unobstructed channel for navigation. It moved in a vertical direction within the limits of the highway and formed an effective bridge guard when open, preventing accidents. The increasing size of vessels called for an ever increasing width of channel and consequent length of span in movable bridges. The cost and difficulties of construction of the hinged pivot or trunnion bascule bridge increased enormously as the span increased in length. These difficulties, owing to the increased span required, finally became so great that a new type of bridge came into use, namely the horizontal draw or swing bridge. This type of bridge differed fundamentally from the bas- cule bridge in that the main supporting pier occupied the 17 ivigable channel, and divided the assages, instead of providing one was therefore necessary to build pan two waterways, even where tion was desired. ctionable features of the swing FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG Pier Obstruction to Navigation. rotection pier required to protect ned, form a serious obstruction on, located virtually in the center inel, is considerably longer and . Such an appropriation of the 1 protection pier is objectionable is especially objectionable where ed in width, as it is in rivers flow- Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Boston and other cities having 1 obstruction in the form of a cen- placed in the center of the navi- terway into two narrow channels and renders useless for navigation the cent-er or most desirable part of the waterway. This feature of the swing bridge is es- pecially objectionable in navigable canals, because the canal must be made wider to accommodate the obstruction, and in rivers two channels must be dredged and maintained instead of one adequate channel. Vessels and Traffic Retarded. 2. Vessels being compelled to deviate from their course in order to pass around the center pier and protection pier obstruction, and the openings provided being narrow, the ves- sels are greatly retarded in their movements and the bridge must remain open a much longer time than if one wide, un- obstructed center channel were provided. Dock Space Wasted. 3. As the swing bridge moves or revolves in a horizontal plane, much valuable dock space adjacent to the bridge is made useless for mooring vessels. Valuable Land Useless. 4. Where the channel is very narrow, the center pier of the swing bridge must be placed upon the shore, the greater part of the bridge swings over land, and only one small open- 18 ing is available for navigation. This necessitates the building of a very large bridge to attain a very small proportionate result, as is illustrated by the swing bridges across the Chicago River at Adams and Jackson streets. The latter bridge has a length of 280 feet and gives only one channel for navigation of about 85 feet. The center pier rests entirely upon the shore, and the bridge swings over land worth many times the cost of the entire structure. These swing bridges must be removed and discarded to meet modern traffic requirements. Disastrous Accidents. 5. Opening the swing bridge leaves a chasm in the road- way which has resulted in very serious accidents on railroad, electric railway and highway swing bridges. Nearly every swing bridge has a notable acciden viaduct at Clevel feet into the riv( passengers, and \| and Norfolk. Thd can be operated i^ and electric railwd of the track and rails on the fixed Swi 6. The swing so that it will not when the bridge this reason swing the streets which t Enormous Size an< 7. Whenever ; across a navigable comes objectionat and weight, and ; 19 ge while it is opened will stop the 1 the necessary repairs are made. ction Difficult. e must usually be erected in the cen- iction presents some difficulties and navigation and traffic. Where traffic xpensive temporary bridge must be •idge a Poor Asset. ually doubles within ten years, and Lich more rapidly. If a single track jefulness is short lived as an increase of traffic requiring an additional track compels the discarding and removal of the existing swing bridge. If a double track swing bridge is then constructed to take its place increased traffic requiring a third track will soon compel the discarding and removal of the new double track swing bridge. This ex- pensive process must be repeated for every growth in traffic requiring an additional track because swing bridges move or revolve in a horizontal plane and therefore a new swing bridge can not be constructed alongside of an existing swing bridge, as the two bridges would strike each other in revolving. This condition makes the swing bridge, which ought to be a perma- nent structure, a very poor and uncertain asset to any railroad company and soon becomes a liability because its removal is expensive and also disarranges and retards traffic. Old type of obstructive center pier swing bridge in a congested location. 20 THE METROPOLITAN ELEVATED RAILROAD BRIDGE. The most difficult problem tliat confronted the manaj^e- ment and engineers of the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad was the question of how they could carry the traffic of their four tracks across the Chicago River, so as to enter the business center of Chicago. Their right of way permitted a crossing between Jackson street and Van Buren street swing bridges, but these two bridges were so close together that it was impossible to build a third swing bridge between them. A number of bridge engineers were consulted as to the best type of bridge to meet the difficulties, and a number of new schemes were submitted, none of them, however, fulfilling the requirements. One of the ablest American bridge engineers submitted to the management a pivot bascule bridge design, similar to the Tower bascule bridge at I.ondon, which was then under construction, and it seemed to be the only feasible solution of the difficulties, and detailed plans were prepared for the construction of the bridge. In working out the detailed plans objectionable features became more apparent and Will- iam Scherzer, C. E., was consulted by the management of the Metropolitan Company in reference to overcoming some of these objectionable features and the execution of the design. After devoting a great deal of time and study to this problem, he became convinced that it was impossible to eliminate the objectionable features of the pivot or trunnion type of bascule bridge. As the elevated railroad was then rapidly nearing completion, the bridge problem became very critical, and in- duced William Scherzer to endeavor to solve the problem on entirely new lines, and, after very extensive studies, ultimately led to his invention of the type of bridge known as the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge. A design for a four-track roll- ing lift bridge was prepared by him and submitted, and after a careful investigation of its merits as compared with those of other types of bridges, it was decided by the management of the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Company to adopt this design, and William Scherzer was entrusted with the preparation of the detailed plans. The Metropolitan Company then proposed to the City of Chicago that this type of bridge also be used at Van Buren street in place of the old swing bridge, which was inadequate. This proposition was accepted by the City of Chicago, and ap- proved by the Secretary of War on November i6th, 1893. The plans for both of these bridges were completed in that year, shortly before the death of William Scherzer. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge fulfills every require- ment essential to a movable bridge. Its introduction marked a new era in the progress of movable bridges. It eliminates the objectionable features of the hinged pivot or trunnion bas- cule bridge, the swing bridge and the direct lifting bridge. It spans navigable waters in the simplest, most efficient and least expensive manner. It has been in extensive use for a number of years and has never trapped or killed a single victim, nor as yet has any vessel succeeded in damaging the bridge. The bridge is especially adapted to avoid collisions, because of its great rapidity in opening and moving out of all danger. The efficiency of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge in accommodating both the largest land and water traffic and its superiority over former types of movable bridges has been demonstrated beyond question by the many large bridges of the Scherzer type now in successful operation in Chicago, New York, Buffalo, Cleveland and Boston, and the further fact that it has been adopted, ap- proved and used by the management and engineers of the largest and most progressive railroads in the United States and foreign countries, for the largest and most difficult movable railroad bridges ever built, and the further fact that the Scher- zer bridge has been adopted and the Scherzer Company has completed plans for a number of large railroad and highway bridges now in the course of construction in various parts of the United States and England, Ireland, Holland, Russia, Egypt, India, Argentine Republic, Mexico, and other foreign countries. The other types of movable bridges heretofore used are rapidly being replaced by the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge. An eminent authority has stated : "The Scherzer type is the bridge of perfection ; it is recog- nized by the engineering profession as the most perfect bas- cule bridge in existence ; it is a monument to the inventor." v/chcrzcr IVolliag Uft Drid^CuT Piers on Shore ; No Center Piers ; Channel Unobstructed. I. The movable parts of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge are supported by piers placed upon the sides of the navigable channel, and no center pier support is necessary. The entire navigable channel is available, and is unobstructed for the pas- sage of vessels. The span of the bridge may be made large enough to fulfill any requirements of navigation without im- pairing the simplicity, safety or efficiency of the bridge. No Dock Space Wasted. 2. All dock space adjacent to the bridge is available for mooring vessels, as the bridge in opening or closing rolls or moves in a vertical direction. 23 Canal or Waterway Need Not be Widened. 3. When it is desired to bridge a navigable channel, river or canal, the bridge piers can be placed upon the shores. This leaves the entire width of the waterway unobstructed and avail- able for navigation when the bridge is opened. The center pier and protection pier of a swing bridge, w^hen placed in the center of a similar waterway obstruct the channel and would necessitate a widening of the canal or river to obtain two less efficient channels for the passage of vessels around the ob- struction. Roadway Closed. Accidents Impossible. 4. When opened for the passage of vessels, the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge acts as a barrier, closing the roadway, and thus absolutely preventing the many serious accidents com- mcm to swing ])ridges when opened. Vessels Can Move Rapidly. Partial Opening Sufficient. 5. The large unobstructed opening in the direct line of the navigable channel, obtained by the use of a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, enables vessels to pass the bridge very rapidly, and as a partial opening of the bridge will often be sufficient for the passage of vessels, the power expended and the time occupied in opening and closing the bridge are both reduced to a minimum. The large bridges of this type now in use arc usually completely opened or closed in less than thirty seconds, and receive highway or railroad traffic in less than one minute from the time the bridge begins to close. A swing bridge could not be operated so rapidly and safely, nor could vessels pass so rapidly through the narrow openings provided by the swing bridge. Bridge Can Be as Wide as Desired — Advantages of a Num- ber of Bridges Side by Side. 6. Any desired number of contiguous railroad tracks may be carried across a navigable canal or river by the Scherzer Rolling Lift type of bridge, by constructing single or double track bridges and placing them side by side, to be coupled to- gether when it is desired to operate them as one ])ridge ; or each bridge may be equipped so as to operate singly. This method of arranging a number of bridges side by side abso- lutely insures a passage for railroad trains across the w^aterway at all times, as any accident to the operating machinery of one bridge would not interfere with the use of the remaining bridges in the group. Objection may, justly be made to the enormous size, width and weight of a four, six or eight track railroad swing bridge, but no such objection can be made to the use of two, three or four independent double-track bridges of the Scherzer type, when the entire width of each bridge is only 30 feet, and each bridge is equipped so that it can be oper- ated independently of the other bridges, and all of the bridges 24 are so arranged that they may be coupled together and operat- ed as one bridge when desired. Increasing the number of bridges to be placed side by side to be operated as one bridge when they are arranged in this manner, does not decrease the safety, speed or facility of operation. Erection Rapid and Economical. No Obstruction. 7. The construction and erection of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge causes no obstruction whatever to navigation. The movable parts of the bridge are erected and completely equipped for operation on the piers at each side of the water- way, in the positions which they occupy when the bridge is open for navigation, and it is not necessary to close the bridge until it is entirely completed and ready for use. This method of erection upon the shores is also very economical and rapid. Both railroad, highway and vessel traffic can be maintained while the bridge is being erected in the upright position on its piers. Long Span Bridges Absolutely Safe for the Heaviest Loads. 8. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge insures the highest degree of safety in carrying the maximum loads for either highway or railway traffic, as the bridge is designed to act either as an arch or cantilever bridge, or a simple truss span, and, if desired, both the arch and cantilever features may be combined in one bridge. An arch or cantilever span, 200 feet, 300 feet or 500 feet in length is a comparatively limited struc- ture, and cannot be objectionable because of its length. See comparative diagram. Double Deck Bridge. Roadway at Any Desired Height. 9. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge may be designed either as a through or a deck bridge or as a double deck bridge. The roadway may be placed at any desired elevation above the surface of the water. At Rest When Opened 45 Degrees. Movable Parts Cannot be Injured by Falling. 10. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge may be counter- weighted so that the center of gravity falls in the center of the rolling segment. In order to move the bridge it is then only necessary to overcome the resistance due to friction, which in the case of a large roller and a perfectly level track, is very small, very much smaller than with any other type of movable bridge, the swing bridge not excepted. To make the bridge more rapid in its operation and to secure the absolute safety of the movable parts, even in the case of an accident to the operating machinery, the movable leaves, or parts composing the bridge, are so counter-weighted that they are at rest when opened at an inclination of about 45 degrees, and not in the horizontal position which they occupy when closed. Thus the leaves forming the movable parts of the bridge will, as soon as 25 the locks are withdrawn, without the application of any power whatever, roll back and upward from the horizontal positions which they occupy when closed, and open a sufficient channel for the passage of vessels, the dead weight of the movable parts of the bridge in this manner assisting very materially in opening the bridge for navigation, and also in closing the bridge when it has been opened entirely. The principal ad- vantage gained from this arrangement of the counter-weight, lies in the absolute safety of the movable parts of the bridge in case of a failure of any part of the operating machinery. No matter what positions the movable parts of the bridge occupy, should such an accident occur, the parts cannot fall and strike with violence; they can only roll downward to nearly the horizontal position which they occupy when closed, and then roll back again until they finally come to a position of rest at an angle of about 45 degrees. A failure of the operating ma- chinery is very unlikely to occur, as it is very simple and strong. One Leaf or Span for 300 Foot Channel, or Less. II. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge may be designed with only one movable leaf or span, when it is desired to cross a narrow waterway and obtain an unobstructed channel of 300 feet or less in width. Such a single span bridge would be more economical in construction and also more efficient than a swing bridge giving a like channel. Economy in Construction. 12. That the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge is not expensive in construction has been repeatedly demonstrated by bids submitted for Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges in competition with swing bridges and other types of movable bridges, includ- ing direct lifting and trunnion bascule bridges. This is also further demonstrated by the fact that more than one hundred Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges have already been constructed or are now under construction superseding and replacing cen- ter pier swing bridges and trunnion bascule bridges in the United States and abroad. Most Perfect Method to Overcome Friction. 13. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge uses the most per- fect and simplest known mechanical method to overcome fric- tion, and friction is of no consequence in a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, even for the longest and heaviest movable spans required. The Scherzer bridge moves by means of a large circular wheel, rocking upon a perfectly smooth and level track. In this respect it diflFers fundamentally from the pivot or trunnion bascule bridge, in which the friction on the pivots or trunnions increases enormously with every increase in length or weight of movable span. Little Power Consumed. 14. The electric power consumed in operating a Scherzer 26 Rolling Lift Bridge is comparatively trifling, because the mov- able spans are perfectly counter-balanced and roll or rock virtually without friction in opening or closing. The movable spans of even the largest Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges re- spond and acquire a momentum so rapidly that the current is usually turned into the motors for less than 20 seconds for a complete operation of opening and closing the bridge. The double track Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge constructed in 1903 for the Newburgh & South Shore Railway Company across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio, has a movable span of 160 feet. This bridge carries the heaviest modern rail- road traffic, yet it requires an average of only 25 H.P. to operate in 30 seconds. The efficiency and economy of this bridge has already caused its duplication by a large number of railroad companies, among which are the following : Baltimore & Ohio Railroad ; New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railway ; New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad; Norfolk & Western Rail- road; Seaboard Air Line Railway; San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad; Duluth, Rainy Lake & Winnipeg and Canadian Northern Railways; Norfolk & Southern Railway; Buenos Ayres Great Southern Railway and the Government Railway at Port Soudan, Egypt. The above results in economy correspond with the exper- ience gained from the first Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge con- structed for the West Side Elevated Railroad at Chicago as shown by the letter from the general manager, Mr. W. E. Baker, on page 48, the six track Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge at Boston for the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company and the many other bridges of the Scherzer type in operation in this country and abroad for many years. Shortest Possible Movable Span for Any Required Waterway. 15. Because the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge in opening rolls backward and upward, it provides a maximum width of channel for navigation, with a minimum movable span. This great advantage is lost in the pivot or trunnion bascule bridge, as, in order to properly balance that type of bridge, the mov- able span must be more than 10 per cent longer than the movable span of a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, and the in- creased movable span alone will increase the weight and cost of trusses, machinery and equipment more than 25 per cent over a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge. One Man to Operate Bridge. 16. A single or double leaf Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge can be operated successfully by one man from one side of the channel. The bridge can be operated by electricity, gasoline, steam, hydraulic, hand or other power. Substructure May be Narrow. 17. The substructure may be designed narrow, to provide for a by-pass or to form the least obstruction possible and pro- vide for a maximum water-flow. 27 Rails Firmly Fastened to Moving Structure. i8. The rails on the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge are firmly fastened to the movable structure. They do not have to be lifted before the bridge can be operated as is the case with swing bridges. This advantage insures the stability and perfect alignment of the track, making impossible accidents common to swing bridges where the rails are raised from the ties before the bridge can be operated. Marked Features: Simplicity, Rigidity and Safety. 19. A marked feature of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges now in use is the firmness and rigidity of the bridge under very heavy loads, both of railroad and highway traffic. The simplicity of the bridge structure, as compared with other movable bridges now in use, is at once apparent upon inspec- tion of the bridge itself, or the views thereof herewith pre- sented. The movable bridge span is composed only of the necessary material to bridge the chasm. The movable parts of the bridge roll in the most simple manner upon level tracks, which are firmly anchored to the masonry piers placed upon the banks of the waterway. Bridge a Permanent Asset. 20. A Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge is a permanent asset. A single track Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge can be constructed and used continuously. As soon as traffic increases so as to require an additional track this can be readily and econom- ically provided by building another single track Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge alongside of the existing structure without delaying or interfering with traffic over the ex- isting l)ridge. This process of adding single, double or mul- tiple track bridges alongside of the existing bridge to accom- modate growth in traffic from time to time can be continued to any desired extent. Four, six and eight track Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges have already been constructed, composed of independent bridges placed side by side operated jointly or separately as desired. This great advantage of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge is obtained because the bridge in operat- ing moves entirely in a vertical plane and is lost in a swing bridge because it operates in a horizontal plane thus making it impossible to build any additional structures within the sweep of its radius of operation. Trunnions, Ropes, Pulleys and Towers Unnecessary. The objectionable hinged pivot or trunnion of the ancient bascule bridge, and the necessary towers, ropes, pulleys and shifting counter-weights required to operate some pivot bas- cule and lifting bridges, are entirely dispensed with. The counter-weight required in the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge is a part of the structure and is firmly fixed to it. The bridge forms an artistic and pleasing structure, and for sim- plicity, safety, rigidity, rapidity of operation, economy, effic- iency and durability, it has no equal in use anywhere. 28 HOW DO YOU CROSS A RIVER? Three Methods of Crossing a River Compared. Comparative diagrams, showing the relative lengths of three methods of crossing a navigable channel, 200 feet wide and 30 feet deep. Comparison also applicable to a wider or a deeper channel. 1. SUBWAY. Total length, 4,620 feet. 2. HIGH-LEVEL RRH)GE. Total length, 8,887 feet. 3. SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE. Total length 307 feet. 888 7 Ft. T o lcU Le nffth of ffiffh B ri dffe /n^stacUnff Jfpproiiches SO Bottom, ficadwcu/ cTSuiwwf 4620 ft. Total Length oTSuhway yertual Scale h 50 IflO I 200 -4— «o -4— soon HoHwUalSeaU W i ll' )0 1000 2000 ZSOOFt. ' I I i IN I I I I I I I I I I I I I RELATIVE COST OF THE ABOVE THREE METHODS OF CROSSING A NAVIGABLE CHANNEL. I. Cost of a Subway 100 feet wide, at the rate of $20.00 tion or allowance for land damages, $9,240,000, approximately, per square foot of roadway and sidewalks, without ornamenta- 2. Cost of a High-level Bridge, 100 feet wide, at the rate 29 of $5.00 per square foot of roadway and sidewalks, without ornamentation or allowance for land damages, $4,450,000, ap- proximately. 3. Cost of a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, complete, 100 feet wide, at the rate of $9.50 per square foot of roadway and sidewalks, without ornamentation, there being no land dam- ages, $300,000, approximately. All of the ornamentation of the Alexander III Bridge, Paris, which is acknowledged to be the most beautiful bridge in existence, cost $200,000. A similar ornamentation of a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge would not cost more, and would make the total cost of a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, orna- mented similar to the Alexander III Bridge at Paris, cost $500,000, approximately. The cost of similar ornamentations for a subway or high- level bridge would be increased at least in proportion to the enormously increased lengths of these structures. HOW DO YOU CROSS A RIVER? Subways, Tunnels and High-Level Bridges to Cross Navigable Water- ways Compared with a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge. Intelligent engineering requires that all public as well as private improvements be planned on an economic basis to conserve energy and money. Probably the most exhaustive study and investigation re- garding the relative merits of a subway, tunnel or high-level bridge for crossing a navigable waterway, as compared with a movable bridge, was made for the crossing of the Thames River at the site of the Tower Bridge, London, England, and resulted in favor of the movable bridge, even though the only feasible type of bridge then available was very expensive. Briefly, the Main Objections to a Subway or Tunnel are: 1. Absence of natural light and air, and perpetual large ex- pense to supply lighting and ventilation. 2. Subways and tunnels have only been constructed when other methods were impossible. The people dislike subways and tunnels, and do not voluntarily use them, because of the grades and the deficiency of natural light and fresh air. Sub- ways and tunnels have always been limited in width and capacity on account of their excessive cost of construction and maintenance. The cost of a subway or tunnel to cross a navi- 30 gable channel 200 feet wide and 30 feet deep is not less than fifteen times as great as the cost of a Scherzer Rolling Lift THE SUB'WAY OR TUNNEL. Bridge of the same width and capacity. The cost of maintain- ing and operating the bridge is less than the cost of lighting, ventilating and pumping the tunnel. 3. Modern vessels require a channel at least 30 feet deep. The floor of a subway would have to be about 66 feet below street level. Then to cross a river only 200 feet wide by means of a subway with a 3 per cent grade would require a tunnel 4,600 feet long, and all traffic would have to travel at least one mile to cross a river only 200 feet wide. At an average speed of four miles per hour, it would take fifteen minutes to cross the river through the subway. At the same speed, to cross the river on a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge would require only one minute. The occasional delay, if the bridge were opened for the passage of a vessel, would be comparatively trifling, as the average time for the opening of the bridge, passing of a vessel and closing of the bridge, is only two minutes. During the four winter months, there is usually no navigation and no delay from opening the bridge. 4. Pedestrians, cars and vehicles would have to perpet- ually expend enormous energy to climb out of the subway. The average travel during twenty-four hours across London Bridge, London, England, having a width of 50 feet, amounts to 22,000 vehicles and 110,000 pedestrians. To climb out of a subway 66 feet deep, the energy expended by this traffic would amount to more than 5,000 horse-power hours per day, or about 1,900,000 horse-power hours, net, per year, exclusive of all friction, radiation, evaporation, etc., which would also amount to at least as much more of wasted energy. 5. Should the subway or tunnel not be placed deep enough for the possible future requirements of navigation, as was unfortunately the case with three large and costly tunnels 31 constructed at Chicago, then the subway or tunnel would have to be lowered and reconstructed at very great expense, and THE HIGH BRIDGE during reconstruction the subway would have to be closed to all traffic for years. After the completion of the deepened subway, all the objectionable features would be increased be- cause of the increased depth, and become prohibitive to the heavier traffic. The High Bridge. A fixed bridge would have to be at least 130 feet above street level to be high enough to allow the passage of masted vessels. It would have ample light and air, but all the objec- tionable features of the subway or tunnel in regard to long and steep grades and great cost of construction and mainten- ance would be intensified, because of the greater height and length. The Brooklyn Bridge at New York City alone has cost for construction more than twice as much as all of the movable bridges built in Chicago up to the present time. All of the Above Objections to the Subway, Tunnel or High Bridge are Overcome by the Use of THE SCHERZER rolling LIFT BRIDGE. 1. Light and air are abundant. 2. A wide and adequate bridge can be built for a small fraction of the cost of a narrow subway or tunnel. The cost of maintenance and operation of the bridge is also much less. 3. There is practically no grade for traffic to climb to reach the bridge, and no energy or time is wasted in climbing steep grades. 4. All traffic can reach the bridge from any point direct, without loss of time, and cross the river without taking a long and circuitous route. 5. Any possible future deepening of the navigable channel would not require the reconstruction of a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, nor cause any delay to the traffic crossing the bridge. 6. The Scherzer Rolling Lift' Bridge would also be a per- manent, beautiful and monumental structure, an ornament to anv city* n .^ 11 ^p^fCP^ THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE 32 HOW DO YOU CROSS A RIVER? THE OLD WAY Four Single-Track Swliiff Bridges constructed from time to time to carry the additional Rail- road Tracks required tor increasing Traffic. THE MODERN WAY Four Single-Track Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges constructed from time to time to carry the additional Railroad Tracks required for increasing Traffic. EXTUN RAILROAD TRACKS EXTRA/RIBHT OF WA T/REtWRED J Swing BrMgts art FundaiiMntally Winng in Prinelpto: 1. Objectionable curved tracks, widely spread. 2. Extra right of way required. 3. Extra operators required. 4. Channel obstructed. 5. Railroad traffic retarded. 6. Increased danger. 33 Soh«rz«r Rolling Uft Bridgos art Fundamantally Right In Prineipla: 1. straight parallel tracks 2 No extra right of way required. S. Only one operator reauired. 4. Channel unobstructed. 5. Railroad traffic expedited. 6. Increased safety. MUROM TMIXS A Suggestion for an Artistic Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge 1^; w Twentieth Centiiry Memorial Bridge Across the Chicago River Connecting the North and South Side Boulevard Systems. 34 [^ g An Artistic Desiif n KoUitig Li/t Bridge The main connecting link between the North and South Side boulevard systems of the City of Chicago is the Rush Street swing bridge. This structure is almost constantly crowded with heavy trucks and wagons, transporting mer- chandise, making the thoroughfare hazardous for lighter vehi- cles, carriages, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. A de- mand has arisen for an additional and more satisfactory connection between these boulevard systems, to be used ex- clusively for boulevard traffic. A tunnel has been proposed for this purpose, but as the depth of the river is to be at least thirty feet below datum, a tunnel or subway must necessarily have very long and steep approaches, and the cost has been variously estimated at from $6,000,000 to $10,000,000, for a subway wide enough to accommodate the traffic. A high level bridge has also been proposed, but would not be feasible for the reasons stated in the preceding article. With a view of illustrating the artistic and monumental possibilities of a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge for such a cross- ing, a number of designs have been prepared, one of which is shown on page 34. In the design illustrated, the rear ends of the moving spans, including the counter-weight and operating machinery, are inclosed and protected by monumental masonry. The clear channel provided for navigation is 200 feet wide when, the bridge is open. The roadway is elevated about thirty-three feet above datum at the center of the bridge. There is suf- ficient head-room beneath the bridge for the passage of tugs and small craft, when the bridge is closed. The monumental part of the design is not intended as a finality, but is merely a suggestion of the possibilities, and follows largely the monumental features of the far-famed Al- exander III Bridge, recently constructed in Paris. The design contemplates the construction of the bridge east of Rush Street. The most feasible plan for a connecting link 35 between the boulevard systems would be to cover the tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad from 12th street to the crossing of the river at the bridge. The covering of the Illinois Central tracks by means of a viaduct, with buckle-plate floor, asphalt roadway and concrete sidewalks, will enable the ultimate cre- ation of a grand Esplanade 300 feet in width, if desired, and readily accessible from every cross street. The covering of the Illinois Central tracks will make useful more than $10,- 000,000 worth of space now wasted and will forever dispose of the disagreeable tracks, smoke and noise which now rob the lake front of its principal attractions, will give an unobstructed view of the lake, will provide a proper environment and enable the early development of magnificent parks, with lagoons and grand canals, east of the railroad tracks, rivaling those of Venice, and be the ultimate site of magnificent, durable and permanent architectural triumphs, rivaling the grand but tem- porary achievements of the World's Fair. The able management of the Railroad Company will recog- nize the great necessity, desirability and value of this improve- ment to a metropolitan city like Chicago, and will undoubtedly co-operate for its early accomplishment as they have in the past in depressing their tracks and constructing the present monumental retaining walls, and viaducts across their tracks. A change of motive power to electricity will facilitate the ulti- mate covering of the entire length of tracks bordering upon the lake shore, and enable the extension of the Esplanade to Jack- son Park. Triumphal arches, great columns and statuary, with the necessary and appropriate environment of beautiful skies, parks and lagoons, it is evident would be impossible in a subway, and a tunnel, subway or high-level bridge would be of no benefit whatever in solving the present railroad nuisance. The entire cost of an Esplanade 300 feet wide from 12th Street to the river, a bridge ample to accommodate both land and water traffic, and the necessary short approach on the north side of the river, can be built for less than one-half the cost of a tunnel or subway, and would leave several million dollars to be expended for permanent statuary, triumphal arches, columns and other appropriate monuments to embellish the Esplanade, and give to Chicago a boulevard only rivaled by the Champs d'Elysees, Paris. 36 Sketch suggesting a wide Esplanade, covering the Illinois Central Railroad tracks, with an artistic Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge across the Chicago River, forming a connection between the North and South Side Boulevard Systems of the City of Chicago, and illustrating a limited reclamation of the sub- merged lands along the Lake Front of Chicago for Park purposes. 37 38 ChicestgQ iz 2v.rbor I n\p rove racivtvy" THE INTERNAL HARBOR SYSTEM. The Most Scientific, Economical and Perfect System for Water and Railroad Transportation and Distribution in the World. The large lake vessels carrying the bulk of the commerce of the great lakes have been prevented from entering the har- bor of Chicago, because the river is obstructed by swing bridges, whose center piers and pier protections absolutely block the passage of the modern lake carrier. The Sanitary District of Chicago is now required to maintain a flow of more than 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute through the Drainage and Ship Canal. This flow is supplied from Lake Michigan and must pass through the Chicago River into the Drainage and Ship Canal. The highway swing bridge at Taylor Street and the rail- road swing bridge at the Grand Central Station, between Taylor and 12th Streets, formed an obstruction to the passage of the required volume of water that could only be obviated by the removal of these bridges and the substitution therefor of bridges having their supporting piers on shore, or the con- struction of an extensive by-pass system under very valuable railroad and warehouse property. The Board of Trustees of the Sanitary District, after a very careful study and considera- tion of the problem, decided to remove the two swing bridges 39 mentioned and construct two Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges. Their decision was largely influenced by the fact that the report of the Chief Engineer showed a saving of $95,000 in favor of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges as against the build- ing of the by-pass, and the further fact that the building of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges would remove all obstructions to the passage of vessels at this point, while the by-pass would be of no benefit whatever to navigation. The situation at these crossings is clearly shown on the plat, page 16, and illustrates the obstructive character of all swing bridges. In removing these two obstructions, the Sanitary District inaugurated a policy which contemplates the earliest possible removal of all the swing bridges obstructing the Chicago River and the sub- stitution therefor of the most modern type of bridge. In pursuance of this policy, it was decided to remove at once the swing bridges at State street, Dearborn street, Ran- dolph street, Harrison street, i8th street, Main street and Canal street, and replace all of them with Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges, the Scherzer Company furnishing the designs, plans, specifications, and consulting engineering services for this work. These and other contemplated improvements, when completed, will enable the largest lake vessels to go direct to and moor at the various manufacturing plants, docks, ware- houses and railroad terminals located along the forty miles of river front on the Chicago River. The serious delays to traffic across the river, caused by the old swing bridges, will be eliminated, as the new bridges to be provided will open and close rapidly, and the required openings will be much less frequent, on account of the increased size and decreased number of vessels passing through the bridges. The present small boats, with small cargoes and frequent trips, will be replaced by the large, modern, economical steel vessel, and the largest vessels will be enabled to move rapidly, because a wide and unobstructed channel will be provided in the middle of the river. The average cargo and total tonnage of the port of Chicago will increase enormously. Upon the opening of the present Drainage and Ship Canal for navigation, more than fifty-six miles of additional dock frontage will be available and added to Chicago's already enormous harbor, and open a vast area of low-priced real estate for the location of new manufacturing plants, directly accessible to the largest vessels, and also located within the greatest and most perfect railroad distributing center in the world, thus enabling Chicago, not only to maintain its suprem- acy as the greatest marine port in the world, but will also make Chicago the richest, largest and most economical manu- facturing, industrial and transportation center in the world. Had this wise policy not been inaugurated, and were the Chicago River closed to navigation, and the docks built along the Lake Front of the City, forming an Outer Harbor far re- moved from the present manufacturing plants, warehouses and railroad terminals, which could not be removed to the Lake Front, owing to the limited area and enormous value 40 of real estate adjacent to the Lake Front, it is self evident that the growth and progress of Chicago would have been seriously crippled, and commerce and manufacturing driven to more progressive cities, where the large modern vessel could go direct, by means of an Internal Harbor System, to the manufacturing plants, warehouses and railroad terminals, lo- cated on low-priced real estate. Of supreme importance is the fact that the adopted policy will forever conserve the natural beauty of the Lake Front of Chicago, and enable the creation of beautiful parks, with islands, lagoons and sites for magnificent public institutions, re- claimed by a gradual filling of the submerged lands throughout the entire length of the city, if desired, to a width of one, two, three, four or more miles, as the population and needs of the city increase. These great benefits can be obtained without expense to the taxpayers of the City of Chicago, as the cost of reclaiming the land is trifling compared to the value of the real estate created. The Lake Front of Chicago has a length of about 21 miles, measured from Evanston to the Calumet River. The water is very shallow near the shore, and gradually increases to a depth of only about 35 feet at a distance of four miles from the shore. Here the break-waters should be built to prepare the Chicago harbor for the large vessels which will soon seek entrance. The engineering problems involved in dredging, filling and reclaiming this land for a distance of four miles from the shore present no great difficulties, as much larger feats have been accomplished at Venice and throughout Holland during the Middle Ages. Within the above area, 84 square miles, or 2,000,000,000 square feet of land can be created. If only one-half of this area is sold at the low average of $1.00 per square foot, more than $1,000,000,000 will be realized; and the remaining area will be fourteen times as great as all the present Chicago parks, both large and small, and of incalculable value. In Holland, many expensive, difficult and larger reclamations have been made for agricultural purposes only. The map accompanying this article suggests the future possibilities of Chicago. Following upon the gigantic achievements of the municipal administrations and the progressive people of Chicago during her very brief existence, with the enormously increased re- sources of the present time, this undertaking is not too great for accomplishment and realization early in the twentieth cen- tury. If Chicago's natural beauty were not developed, its wealthy inhabitants would seek residence elsewhere, and its earnings would be drained by absentee landlords. Chicago will take advantage of all her great opportunities, and by developing them on a large and comprehensive plan, attract the wealth, art, culture and refinement of the world, and will be not only the greatest manufacturing, industrial and transportation center, but also the most beautiful city in ex- istence. 41 Other progressive cities have recognized the secret under- lying Qiicago's commercial success, and the fact that The In- ternal Harbor System is the most scientific, economical and perfect system for water and railroad transportation and dis- tribution, and are as rapidly as possible following in her footsteps, and are developing internal harbor facilities to trans- port and distribute their commerce, without lighterage and other charges, by the most scientific, economical and perfect known system. Sketch Illustrating an Entrance to Modem Chicago's Improved INTERNAL HARBOR SYSTEM. 42 The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company General Offices: Monadnock Block, Chicago Eastern Offices: 220 Broadway, New York Cable Address: " Scherzer Chicago " Long Distance Telephones: Chicago, Harrison 874 ; New York, Cortlandt 4614 The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company succeeded to the business founded by William Scherzer, the inventor of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, and has always endeavored to maintain the original efficiency of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, and has, by gradual improvement and development, succeeded in simplifying the construction and operation of the bridge, greatly reducing, not only the first cost of construc- tion, but the cost of maintenance and operation, as well. The success of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge in span- ning wide navigable channels removes one of the difficulties and limitations heretofore encountered in ship canal construc- tion and river and waterway improvements, as both the swing bridge and pivot or trunnion bascule bridge have been in- adequate for these purposes. The illustration (page 47) shows an Arch Rolling Lift Bridge, a Cantilever Rolling Lift Bridge and a Rolling Lift Bridge acting as a simple Truss, each closed to receive traffic. In comparing these spans with the very large spans of the notable fixed bridges, also shown on the same scale. it is self-evident that, as a closed bridge to safely carry the heaviest loads, the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge may be greatly increased in length of span, without reaching the limits of safe construction. It is also self evident that, as a movable bridge, it has not yet reached the limits of its possibilities. No matter how long the span may be, sufficient substructure can be con- structed and counter-weight and machinery can be provided to open or close the span. The counter-balancing and moving of a very long span Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge is accomplished easily and with little power, because the bridge rolls on a smooth and level track virtually without friction. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, when open, is more stable against wind pressure than the Eifel Tower or the Park Row Building, New York City, shown in the illustrations, be- cause the bulk of the weight of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, when opened, is in the counter-weight boxes and seg- ments, within or close to the foundations. Unlike these struc- 43 tures and other high buildings, it is uninhabited when open, and may be closed and placed out of all possible danger during a high wind or cyclone. It is also most rigidly braced. The substructure involves no unusual difficulties ; it can be proportioned with the same certainty as the superstructure for the stresses which it must carry. Larger stresses are safely carried by the substructures of the Forth Bridge and the Brooklyn Bridge than will probably ever have to be carried by the substructure of the longest span Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge which is likely to be required in the future, but were a movable span required longer than either of the above, ample substructure could be provided. The inventions and achievements of William Scherzer, and the developments and improvements made by his successors, have greatly increased the possibilities in movable bridge con- struction. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge is capable of great and economical expansion in length of span and width of bridge, and is adequate to meet any possible future demands. To meet the growing demand for more artistic bridge struc- tures, special attention is devoted by the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company to this feature, and the most experienced and talented architects are consulted. The outlines of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge are more pleasing and artistic than those of any other type of movable bridge. The bottom chord of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge may form a graceful arch, and the bridge may be a clear deck span. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge is well adapted to the most simple or the most elaborate artistic adornment, as shown by the various designs illustrated and the design on page 34. It may have the general outlines and be ornamented similar to the Alexander III Bridge at Paris, and in addition thereto be movable for the accommodation of navigation. An arched deck span Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge may be combined with arched deck fixed spans of steel or reinforced concrete construction, the entire bridge forming a pleasing, harmonious and artistic structure. Such a harmonious com- bination of fixed and movable spans is impossible where a swing bridge is used for the movable portion of the bridge nor can this result be obtained economically by any other form of bascule bridge. Although the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge is protected by patents, it has been the policy of the inventor and founder, and always will be the policy of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company, to make a reasonable charge for the right to construct a bridge under its patents. These charges are but a small proportion of the saving effected by the use of the 44 Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, compared with the cost of other types of movable bridges. The Company is prepared to furnish, at any part of the world, consulting engineering services, designs, plans, specifi- cations and supervision of construction of all classes of bridges, but makes a specialty of Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges, and for these services makes the most reasonable charges consistent with the highest class of service which it always renders. The Company is also prepared to take contracts for the complete manufacture, construction, erection and equipment of bridges. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges are all constructed under the designs, plans and specifications and consulting engineering supervision of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company, hav- ing Chicago offices in the Monadnock Building, New York offi- ces in the St. Paul Building and other offices in the principal cities throughout the world. A large corps of the most exper- ienced and successful engineering specialists are constantly em- ployed, assisting and co-operating with the principal consulting, government, railroad and municipal engineers throughout the world. The efficiency of the organization of the Company and its ability to successfully handle the various problems coming to it in this highly specialized branch of engineering practice is perhaps best shown in the extensive and successful record it has made in developing the design of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge to efficiently and economically meet the requirements of widely varying conditions, more Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges now being in operation or under constrtfction in various parts of the world than all other types of bascule bridges combined — an unparalleled record. The Company will be pleased to furnish to responsible parties, preliminary sketches and estimates of cost of proposed bridges, upon request, accompanied by data giving the follow- ing information : 1. Type of bridge, highway or railroad. 2. Location. 3. Name of River or Waterway. 4. Total length of structure including both movable span and fixed approach spans. 5. Least clear width of channel for navigation (required by the authorities) measured at right angles to the center line of navigable channel. 6. Angle of crossing measured between center line of navi- gable channel and center line of bridge. 7. Distance from high water to top of roadway or base of rail. 8. Minimum clear height permissible from high water to bottom of bridge when in the closed position. 45 g. (Highway bridge). Clear width of roadway between 13. Loading and specifications to govern design, curbs. 14. Substrata conditions as shown by borings on both 10. (Highway bridge). Number and clear width of side- walks. 11. (Railroad bridge) Number of tracks. sides of the river at the bridge site. 12. Proposed power for operation, hand, electric, gasoline (NOTE: It is very desirable when possible that this data or other means. be accompanied by a plat and profile of the bridge site.) Active Agents of Modem Progress and Civilization. 46 BrvMifn Bndjft. CunfOete*/ /S83 . -«.»_^ •• « — , Lr- _«» r\\. ^A^ ^ {£^:££S. ' ^ L^<^ XX X 1 7 \ / V KcX X V \'\ / '^ / >i . yyyyy^ *^M\^ ^ 1 W\ N "~-^ i \ k! \ ^1 i L>, -i,^ ~ \ -- ^^i^y^ ^^ ,^^ 1 »f // HlffteUwen tiwrn-n on Same Scmie >r *«*^ i<« A*^ fMW Diagram showing the relative proportions of Arch, Cantilever and Truss Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges compared with the dimensions of existing large structures, demonstrating that the length of span of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge can be greatly increased with perfect safety. 47 A FEW TESTIMONIALS REGARDING SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGES IN SERVICE Chicago, Illinois, July 12th, 1897. Dear Sir: — Answering your request for information re- garding the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge, used by this Com- pany at the Chicago River, I have to say, that the four track railway bridge was completed some time before May 6th, 1895, at which date the road was opened and the bridge placed in active service, since which time it has operated continu- ously and has of itself caused no delays to trains, of which there are and have been, since shortly after the date of open- ing the road, about 1,200 trains daily crossing the bridge. The cost of repairs — with the exception of two months, when the bridge did require some small repairs — is largely the wages of one man employed in oiling, cleaning, etc., around the bridge. The bridge may be said not to have re- quired any repairs, except in the inter-locking machinery, and only then in the early days of operation, when it was not well understood. The bridge requires, under our arrangement, two men's time to operate it, one on each side ; but it can be operated by one man, on one side. In regard to your question as to the cost of motor power, for operating the bridge, we do not make any charge for this item. It is too small to be considered. I should estimate that somewhere between five and ten dollars a month is the outside cost of power. It is evidently so small that we have not considered it worth while to go to the extent of measure- ing it definitely. The bridge is operated, as you know, by motor, using the current with which we operate the trains. The bridge has proved rigid. It is rapid to open and shut, has never shown any signs of failure. It requires little power to move it and shows no evidence of a depreciation, and we are satisfied with it. Yours truly, (Signed) W. E. BAKER, General Manager, Metropolitan West Side Elevated R. R. Chicago, Illinois, Jan. 28th, 1907. Gentlemen : — Complying with your inquiry, the following statement is made regarding the use and operation of our four-track Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge over the South Branch of the Chicago River. This bridge has been in daily operation since May, 1895, or for more than eleven and one-half years. All of the trains 48 of the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Company cross this bridge in entering or leaving the down town busi- ness district, the trains at the present time aggregating over 1,500 daily, and each consisting of from two to five cars. Dur- ing the season of 1906 the bridge was open for the passage of shipping as many as 25 times during twenty-four hours. The construction of the bridge and its operating mechanism have proven satisfactory and met all exigencies of this traffic. Repairs and maintenance, aside from that required by any ex- posed steel structure, have been very low in cost and do not appear to increase from year to year. There is no hesitation in saying that this bridge, forming an important link in our track system, has been satisfactory to all requirements. Yours very truly, (Signed) BENJ. H. GLOVER, Supt. Motive Power & Way. New Haven, Connecticut, Nov. isth, 1901. Dear Sir: — In response to your inquiry of the 14th inst., beg to say that this Company has a six-track steel Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge over Fort Point Channel, Boston. This bridge has a clear span of 42 feet, is composed of three parallel double-track lifts and is opened in the neighborhood of sixteen times a day during the busy season. The lift span of this bridge is 114 feet in length on account of its acute angle. This bridge has been in use about two years and we are very well satisfied with it, so much so that we have decided to build another one of the same type for our New York Di- vision at Bridgeport over the Pequonnock River, taking the place of a swing bridge. This will be a four-track bridge, composed of two parallel double-track lifts, with a clear span of 80 feet. These bridges are operated much quicker than the swing- ing type, our Fort Point Channel bridge being opened in about 37 seconds. Yours truly, (Signed) C. M. INGERSOLL, Chief Engineer, New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. January 26th, 1907. John N. Faithorn, President of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company, writes under date of January 26th, 1907, as follows: *Tn 1901 a Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge was constructed for the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company across the South Branch of the Chicago River near Taylor Street and near the entrance to the Grand Central Station. This bridge is used by the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company, the Pere Marquette, the Chicago & Great Western and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Companies. This bridge has been in successful operation ever since its completion. Trains have never been delayed through any fault of the bridge during the 49 entire period. The repairs upon the bridge have been slight and especially so considering the great size of the bridge. (Signed) JOHN N. FAITHORN, President, Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad. New Haven, Connecticut, October, 1905. Dear Sir: — Your letter of October i8th, asking for infor- mation relative to Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges has been re- ferred to me. In answer to your first and second questions I may say that this Railroad Company has had a six-track rail- road Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge in operation since i8()9 and the cost of repairs and maintenance has been very small. We also have a four-track bridge of the Scherzer type in operation at Bridgeport since 1902. Both of these bridges are operated by electricity much more rapidly than we could operate swing bridges, and the cost of operation is less than it is for swing bridges. These bridges are so successful in operation that we are now building three more four-track railroad bridges of this type, one of which is nearly completed, and one double-track bridge of long span, and we have in immediate contemplation the building of three others. In answer to your third question : The estimated cost of these bridges did not in any case over-run the railroad Com- pany's revised estimate, except when there was an advance in the price of steel between the time the estimate was made and the bridge contracted for, which period in some cases was from six to nine months, giving ample opportunity for a change in price of material. Answering your fourth question I may say that under many conditions the Scherzer bridge is superior to a swing bridge. This, however, can only be judged of in any particu- lar instance by a full study of the local conditions and require- ments. Yours truly, (Signed) W. H. MOORE, Engineer of Bridges, New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. (Since this letter of October, 1905, we have received orders from the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Com- pany for three more double-track bridges, two more four- track bridges and two more six-track bridges. Cincinnati, O., April 25th, 1901. Dear Sir: — I have your letter of April 23rd, making in- quiry about the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges which have been erected and are being erected on the line of the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway. 50 We installed one of these bridges a year ago at Cleveland, Ohio, and it has worked very satisfactorily ever since its in- stallation. This is a single-track bridge with a clear opening between the protection piling of no feet. We are now about to erect a second bridge of this type which is of the same length but built for two tracks, and is to be operated over the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland. We have found the working of the bridge satisfactory in all respects, and the arrangement made with the Scherzer peo- ple for preparing plans and specifications for the bridge and supervising its erection has also been satisfactory. Yours very truly, (Signed) G. W. KITTREDGE, Chief Engineer, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. (Mr. George W. Kittredge is now Chief Engineer of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad. January 7th, 1907, he gave our Company an order for a double-track bridge of our type on the main line of the New York Central between New York and Albany. This bridge will eventually be a four- track structure.) Chicago, Illinois, February 21st, 1902. Gentlemen : — The first swing bridge ever constructed over the Chicago River was at Dearborn Street in 1834, and from that time to the introduction and use of the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges in 1895, there have been no other successful movable bridges constructed in this city. Up to the time of the introduction of Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges the large lake vessels, which now carry the bulk of the commerce of the Great Lakes, were prevented from entering the harbor of Chicago because of the obstructions to river navigation caused by several swing bridges whose center piers and pier protections blocked their passage, even with the assistance of the powerful tugs of the Chicago River. One of the worst of these obstructive bridges was that car- rying the tracks entering the Grand Central Station between Taylor and Twelfth Street, Chicago. At this point I once had a vessel stuck fast in the draw for several hours and it required the assistance of four tugs and two locomotives, with six-inch hawsers, to free her. This railroad swing bridge, together with the highway swing bridge at Taylor Street, has since been removed and Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges substituted, giving a clear channel for navigation 120 feet wide, through which the largest lake carrier can easily and rapidly pass. My ex- perience has been that since the substitution of Scherzer Roll- ing Lift Bridges for the obstructive center pier swing bridges tug bills for the average lake carrier have been reduced rather than increased. I have also found that the rolling lift bridges 51 are much less liable to injury by passing vessels than the old- fashioned swing bridge, balanced as it is on an obstructive pier in the center of the channel. It is my opinion that THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE HAS SAVED TO THE CITY OF CHICAGO THE LARGE MARINE COM- MERCE AND GREAT TONNAGE OF THE PORT OF CHICAGO, now ranked among the four largest ports of the world. The swing bridge is objectionable to vessel interests in wide rivers as well as narrow rivers; these objections are ob- viated by the more modern Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge. (Signed) J. G. KEITH, Member Executive Committee, Lake Carriers* Association. Chicago, February 2ist, 1902. Gentlemen: — I have read a letter dated the 21st inst., writ- ten by Capt. John G. Keith, a member of the Executive Com- mittee of the Lake Carriers' Association. I would state that the facts presented in Capt. Keith's letter are in accordance with my own experience with tug lines and vessel traffic on the Chicago River. I have on my desk at the present time a large bundle of damage claims for injuries to swing bridges, whereas there has never been any complaint or damage claim on account of any injury to a roll- ing lift bridge. Respectfully yours, (Signed) J. R. SINCLAIR, Local Manager, Dunham Wrecking & Towing Company. Manistee, Mich., March 31st, 1908. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co., Chicago, Illinois. Gentlemen: — In reply to yours of 2y, will say that the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge which your company constructed for this City in 1906 is proving entirely satisfactory in service. I consider it far superior in every respect to the swing bridge which we have in operation at Smith street and believe that the City will replace the swing bridge with a rolling lift bridge within a few years. Yours very truly, (Signed) GEO. B. PIKE, City Engineer. Jersey City, N. J., April 4th, 1908. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co., 1616 Monadnock Block, Chicago, 111. Gentlemen: — Acknowledging your inquiry of the 2nd in- stant: The Scherzer Rolling Lift Spans constructed over the channel at Newark Bay to carry our double track structure 52 have now been in use for several years and have been found very satisfactory in operation. Yours truly, (Signed) JOS. O. OSGOOD, Chief Engineer Central Railroad Company of New Jersey. has proven satisfactory and no trouble has arisen in connec- tion with the operation of the same. Yours truly, (Signed) ROBERT HOFFMANN, Chief Engineer. Boston, April 7, 1908. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co., 1616 Monadnock Block, Chicago, 111. Gentlemen: — In reply to your letter of April 3, 1908, I beg to say that the two Scherzer Bridges designed by you for Sau- gus and Maiden Rivers, and which have been in operation since July, 1906, have been entirely satisfactory in every re- spect, and I earnestly approve of this type of bridge. Very truly yours, (Signed) JOHN R. RABLIN, Engineer Metropolitan Park Commission. City of Cleveland, Ohio, April 29, 1908. The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Co., 1616 Monadnock Bldg., Chicago, 111. Gentlemen :— The Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge built over the Cuyahoga River and known as Middle Seneca Street bridge was opened to the public in June, 1903. The bridge Saginaw, Michigan, May 28, '08. Albert H. Scherzer, President, Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge Company, Chicago, Illinois. Dear Sir: — The Genesee Avenue bridge, crossing the Sagi- naw River in this city, the movable portion of which was con- structed from your design, completed and opened to travel September 4, 1905, has worked satisfactorily without causing trouble or delay in its operation. It is considered one of the best bridges in this state. The sub-structure, which was built on a somewhat questionable sub-foundation, stands without showing any indication of cracking or excessive loading. The bridge is satisfactory in every respect. Yours truly, (Signed) R. W. ROBERTS, City Engineer. 53 er Rolling Lift Bridges in Operation or Under Construction in Various Parts of the World, The Widest, The Most Active and The Most Important Railroad, Electric Railway and High- way Movable Bridges ever built. nerit of the Scherzer Rolling ry services rendered by The mpany are the many repeated r Company and the adoption y Lift Bridges by the leading s, municipalities and eminent ited States and foreign coun- list: States. OAD: tford Railroad: s across Fort Point Channel, s across Pequonnock River, Two Double Track Bridges across Myannus River, Cos Cob, Connecticut. Two Double Track Bridges across Saugatuck River, West- port, Connecticut. Two Double Track Bridges across Housatonic River, Nau- gatuck Junction, Connecticut. One Double Track Bridge across Connecticut River, Lyme, Connecticut. Two Double Track Bridges across Neponset River, Massa- chusetts. Three Double Track Bridges across Bronx River, New York City. Three Double Track Bridges across Eastchester Bay, New York City. 54 A Partial List of Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges in Operation or Under Constructi< One Double Track Bridge across Seekonk River, Provi- dence, Rhode Island. One Double Track Bridge across Niantic River, Niantic, Connecticut. Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad, Chicago: Two Double Track Bridges across Chicago River, Chicago. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway : Two Double Track Bridges across Main Channel, Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago. Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad: One Double Track Bridge across Main Channel, Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago. One Double Track Bridge across Chicago River, Chicago. Chicago Junction Railway: One Double Track Bridge across Main Channel, Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway: One Single Track Bridge across Cuyahoga River, Cleve- land. One Double Track Bridge across Cuyahoga River, Cleve- land. Central Railroad oi Two Double Tr sey. Boston, Revere Bej One Double Tn setts. Newburgh & Soutl One Double Tr; land. Baltimore & Ohio One Double Tr land. One Single Tra land. New York, Chicago One Double Tr land. Norfolk & Westeri One Double Tn Virginia. One Double Tr; ton, Virginia. 55 A Partial List of Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges in Operation or Under Construction in Various Parts of the World— Cont'd Brooklyn Rapid Transit System: Two Double Track Bridges across Coney Island Creek, New York City. New York Central Railway: One Double Track Bridge across Wappinger Creek, New Hamburg, New York. Seaboard Air Line Railway: One Single Track Bridge across Hillsboro Bay, Tampa, Florida. Chicago, Lake Shore & Eastern Railway: One Double Track Bridge across East Chicago Canal, In- diana Harbor, Indiana. Duluth, Rainy Lake & Winnipeg Railway and Canadian North- em Railway: One Single Track Bridge across Rainy River at Pither's Point, Minnesota. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway: One Double Track Bridge across East Chicago Canal, In- diana Harbor, Indiana. Norfolk & Southern Railway: Two Single Track Bridges across Albemarle Sound, North Carolina. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railway: One Single Track Bridge across San Gabriel River, Long Beach, California. Buffalo Creek Railroad: One* Double Track Bridge across Ship Canal, Buffalo, N.Y. HIGHWAY: City of Chicago : One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Van Buren Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at North Halsted Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Taylor Street. One Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Canal Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at State Street. One Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Loomis Street. A Partial List of Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges in Operation or Under Construction in Various Parts of the World — Cont'd One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Main Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Randolph Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Eighteenth Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Harrison Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Twenty-second Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Chicago River at Dearborn Street. City of Cleveland: One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Cuya- hoga River at Middle Seneca Street. New York City: One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across New- town Creek at Vernon Avenue. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Gowanus Canal at Hamilton Avenue. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across East- chester Bay at Pelham Bay Park. One Highway Bridge across Gowanus Canal at Third Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Gowanus Canal at Ninth Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Flushing Creek, Flushing. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Gowanus Canal at Union Street. City of Saginaw, Michigan: One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Saginaw River at Genesee Avenue. City of Buffalo, New York : One Highway Bridge across City Ship Canal at South Michigan Street. City of Marseilles: One Highway Bridge across Canal at Main Street. 57 A Partial List of Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges in Operation or Under Construction in Various Parts of the World — Cont'd City of Boston: City of Manistee, Michigan: One Highway Bridge across Maiden River. „ t-i x • t^ -i j tt- , i-> -j ai One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Man- One Highway Bridge across Saugus River. istee River at Maple Street. One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Charles j^j^^j. City of Peoria, Illinois: One Highway Bridge across Illinois River at Bridge Street. City of New Haven, Connecticut: One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across West City of Fall River, Massachusetts: River at 'Kimberly Avenue. One Highway Bridge across Taunton Great River. Pennsylvania Railroad: City of Cambridge, Massachusetts: One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Union Canal Buffalo N. Y. ^"^ Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Lech- mere Canal at Commercial Avenue. Buffalo & Susquehanna Railroad: Lake- Shore & Michigan Southern Railway: One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Union Canal Buffalo N. Y. ^"^ Highway Bridge across Swan Creek at Monroe Street, Toledo, Ohio. City of Gloucester, Massachusetts : x^ «. t ^-i i t> -i j ^ ^ . , ^, Buffalo Creek Railroad: One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Glouces- ter Canal at Western Avenue. One Highway Bridge across Ship Canal, Buffalo, N. Y. 58 A Partial List of Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges in Operation or Under Construction in Various Parts of the World — Cont'd England Wales. RAILROAD: RAILROAD AND HIGHWAY: ^ , ^ « ^, , « ., Messrs. Williams, Foster & Ca and Pascoe Grenfell & Sons, South Eastern & Chatham Railway : « ^^ . One Railroad and Highway Bridge across Swale River, One Railway and Highway Bridge across the River Tawe England. at Swansea, Wales. Fumess Railway Company: Holland. Vickers Sons & Maxim, Ltd. RAILROAD : One Railroad and Highway Bridge at Barrow-in-Furness, 55^^^^ Railroad Company: ^ ' Three Single Track Bridges across Spaarne River. HIGHWAY : HIGHWAY : T^ 1. i? « • TT^ Ministry of Waterways: Borough of Barrow-m-Furness: j j ^ T-i . . T^ ., J Tr- 1. n -J Axr i Two ElectHc Railway and Highway Bridges across North One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Wamey crifVi ^-t. 1 oca Vw^anai ar v eizen. Channel. Ireland. Russia. HIGHWAY: RAILROAD : ^^^^ ^j g^ Petersburg : Fishguard & Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company : One Electric Railway and Highway Bridge across Ekater- One Single Track Bridge across Suir River. inhofka River. 59 A Partial List of Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridges in Operation or Under Construction in Various Parts of the World — Cont'd Argentine Republic. ^gypt* RAILROAD : RAILROAD : Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway: Egyptian Government: Two Double Track Bridges across Riachuelo Rrv«r, ftic- ©«e Double Track Bridge across the Harbor at Port Sou- nos Aires, A. R. dan. HIGHWAY: Eg3rptian Government: India. One Highway Bridge across the Nile, Cairo. RAILROAD: Mexico. -, ^ ., RAILROAD: Burma Railways: o^ u . t> -i j ^ Tehuantepec Railroad: One Single Track Bridge across Ngawun River at Ran- Two Single Track Bridges across the Harbor at Salina goon, India. Cruz, Mexico. 60 Completed 1895 METROPOLITAN WEST SIDE ELEVATED R. R. CO. W. S, MENDEN, Chief Engineer Four-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, For the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Company In the closed position THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 114 foet Completed 1895 METROPOLITAN WEST SIDE ELEVATED R. R. CO. W. S. MENDEN, Chief Engineer Four-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, For the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad Company View on line of tracks in a partly opened position showing tracks blocked against accidents THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 114 feet Completed 1905 CITY OF SAGINAW R. W. ROBERTS, City Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Saginaw River at Genesee Avenue, Saginaw, Michig View showing roadway Completed 1005 CITY OF SAGINAW R. W. ROBERTS. City Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Saginaw River at Genesee Avenue, Saginaw, Michigan In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable apan, 108 feet Completed 1905 CITY OF SAGINAW R. W. ROBERTS, City Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Saginaw River at Genesee Avenue, Saginaw, Michigan In a partly opened position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 108 feet Completed 1906 BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO p. D. CAROTHERS. Chief Engineer 7. E. GREINER, Assistant Chief Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio. For the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company In a partly opened position Designed • by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, IGO feet Completed 1906 BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. D. D. CAROTHERS, Chief Engineer J. E. GREINER, Assistant Chief Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio, For the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company In the closed position I^esigned by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. CViicago Movable span, 100 feet Completed 1807 CITY OF CHICAGO L. B. JACKSON, City Engineer W. M. HUGHES, Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the North Branch of the Chicago River at North Halsted Street, Chicago In a partly opened position THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 127 feet Completed 18f)7 CITY OF CHICAGO L. B. JACKSON, City Engineer VV. M. HUGHES, Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the North Branch of the Chicago River at North Halsted Street, Chicago In the closed position THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 127 feet UNION STREET Showing Roadway Blocked by Opeti Bridge UNION STRlCJvT ShowinsT HrlilKP Closed for ITiRhway Traffic Completed 1905 CITY OF NEW YORK Honorable GUSTAV LINDENTHAL, Commissioner of Bridges J. S. L ANGTHORN, Engineer in Charge HAMILTON AVENUE Showing Bridge Open for Navigation SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGES ACROSS GOWANUS CANAL. BROOKLYN, NEW YORK Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Completed 1907 BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. D. D. CAROTHERS, Chief Engineer J. E. GREINER, Assistant Chief Engineer Single-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio For the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company Side view showing method of erection in partly opened position wil fcring with railroad traffic over the old bridge Completed 1003 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Eiudneer C. R. DART. Bridge Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Chicago River at State Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago. Movable span, IGl feet 8 inches. Completed 1903 THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Engineer W. M. HUGHES, Engineer of Bridges Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Chicago River at State Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago View showing bridge in the open position. This bridge is the first bascule bridge on the route of the Deep Waterway from tlie Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and Panama Canal. Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 161 feet 8 inches Completed 1890 N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. CO. F. S. CURTIS. Chief Engineer W. "11. MOORE, Engineer of Bridges Six-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Fort Point Channel, Boston, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company Side view showing two spans closed and one span open Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLINC, LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 98 feet 9 inches Completed 1899 N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. CO. F. S. CURTIS. Chief Engineer W. H. MOORE. EnRineer of Bridges Six-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Fort Point Channel, Boston, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company In the open position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 08 feet 9 inches Completed 1899 N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. CO. F. S. CTTRTIS, Chief Engineer VV. rr. MOO RE, Rnj?ineer of Bridges Six-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Fort Point Channel, Boston, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company View on line of tracks showing two spans closed and one span open Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 98 feet 9 inches Completed 1907 CITY OF NEW HAVEN CASSIITS VV. KELLY. City Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across West River at Kimberly Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut In the open and closed positions Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span. r»l feet Completed 1908 X. Y., X. H. & H. R. R. COMPANY EDWARD GAG EL, Chief Engineer W. H. MOORE, Engineer of Bridges Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Niantic River at Niantic, Connecticut, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company View showing new bridge in closed position Dei-igncd by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 68 feet Completed 1908 N. Y., N. IT. & H. R. R. COMPANY EDWARD GAGEL, Chief Engineer W. H. MOORE, Engineer of Bridges Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Niantic River at Niantic, Connecticut, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company View showing new bridge in the open position and the old swing bridge which the new structure replaced Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 68 feet Completed 1905 CITY OF NEW YORK Honorable JOHN L. SHEA, Commissioner of Bridges E. A. BYRNE, Engineer in Charge Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Newtown Creek at Vernon Avenue, New York City In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 172 feet Completed 1905 CITY OF NEW YORK Honorable JOHN L. SHEA, Commissioner of Bridges E. A. BYRNE, Engineer in Charge Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Newtown Creek at Vernon Avenue, New York City In a partly opened position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Chicago Movable span, 172 feet CO. Completed 1905 CITY OF NEW YORK Honorable JOHN L. SHEA, Commissioner of Bridges E- A. BYRNE, Engineer in Charge Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Newtown Creek at Vernon Avenue, New York City In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 172 feet Compietea lyuo CITY OF NEW YORK Honorable JOHN L. SHEA, Commissioner of Bridges E. A. BYRNE, Engineer in Charge Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Newtown Creek at Vernon Avenue, New York City In a partly opened position 1 resigned by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 172 feet Completed 1905 CITY OF NEW YORK Honorable JOHN L. SHF.A. Commissioner of Bridges E. A. BYRNE, Engineer in Charge Flighway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Newtown Creek at Vernon Avenue, New York City View showing roadway Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 172 feet Completed 1901 THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Engineer W. M. HUGHES, Engineer of Bridges CHICAGO TERMINAL TRANS- FER R. R. COMPANY F. E. PARADIS, Chief Engineer RALPH MODJESKI, Consulting Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the South Branch of the Chicago River at the Grand Central Station, Chicago Constructed by the Sanitary District of Chicago for the use of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad and other railroads entering the Grand Central Station. View showing bridge in the closed position. This bridge is the longest span double leaf bascule bridge in the world. Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 275 feet Completed 1901 THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Engineer W. M. HUGHES, Engineer of Bridges CHICAGO TERMINAL TRANS- FER R. R. COMPANY F. E. PARADIS, Chief Engineer RALPH MODJESKI. Consulting Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the South Branch of the Chicago River at the Grand Central Station, Chicago Constructed by the Sanitary District of Chicago for the use of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad and other railroads entering the Grand Central Station. View before removal of old swing bridge showing obstructed channel Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 275 feet Completed 1901 THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Engineer W. M. HUGHES, Engineer of Bridges CHICAGO TERMINAL TRANS- FER R. R. COMPANY F. E. PARADIS, Chief Engineer RALPH MODJESKl, Consulting Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the South Branch of the Chicago River at the Grand Central Station, Chicago Constructed by the Sanitarv District of Chicago for the use of the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad and other railroads entering the Grand Central Station. In the open position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 275 feet Completed 1903 CITY OF CLEVELAND WILLIAM J. CARTER, City Engineer ROBERT HOFFMANN, Assistant City Engineer Highway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Middle Seneca Street, Cleveland, Ohio In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 138 feet Completed 1903 CITY OF CLEVELAND WILLIAM J. CARTER, City Engineer ROBERT HOFFMANN, Assistant City Engineer Highway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Middle Seneca Street, Cleveland, Ohio In the open position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 138 Iccl Corni.leted 11)01 THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH. Chief Engineer W. M. HUGHES, Engineer of Bridges 1'., C. C. & ST. L. RV. CO. THOS. H. JOHNSON, Chief EiiRiiieer C. T. T. R. R. CO. F. E. PARADIS, Chief Engineer C. J RY CO. J.' B. COX* Chief Engineer RALPH MODJESKI, Consulting Engineer for the Railroad Companies Eight-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Main Drainage and Ship Canal, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago I'ur the use of the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Coin- J>any. the Chicafjo Terniinal Transfer Railroad Company and the Chicago [unction Railway Company. View showing api)roach spans and fixed channel spans. Rolling segments and operating machinery are to he added when channel is opened to navigation Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span. l."i() feet Completed 1901 THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH. Chief EiiKineer VV. M. HUGHES, Engineer of Bridges P., C, C. & ST. L. RV. CO. THOS. H. JOHNSON, Chief Engineer C. T. T. R. R. CO. F. E. PARADIS, Chief Engineer C. J. RY. CO. J. B. COX, Chief Engineer RALPH MODTESKI. Consulting Engineer for the Railroad Companies Eight-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Main Drainage and Ship Canal, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago l'"or the use of the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Com- pany, the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company and the Chicago Junction Railway Company. View on line of tracks showing four ad- jacent double-track bridges as fixed structures. This bridge crosses the channel at an angle ol 08 degrees lil minutes 40 seconds. Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, lf»0 feet Completed 190C METRopor.iTAx Park commission J. R. RABr^TX. Chief Engineer Highway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Maiden River For the Metropolitan Park Commission, Boston, Massachusetts In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span. 56 feet C-Ciirii.)1i-i.K'.l 13 KK) METROPOLITAN PARK COMMISSION J. R. RABLIN, Chief Engineer Highway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Saugus River For the Metropolitan Park Commission, Boston, Massachusetts In the open position THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 56 feet Completed 1907 N. v., N. H. & IT. R. R. COMPANY C. M. INC.HRSOLL. Chief Engineer \V. if. MOORR, Knjfineer of BridKes Four-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Neponset River, Massachusetts, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company \'ie\v on line of tracks showing one leaf in closed porition and one leaf in open position. Designed by TIIK SCHERZER ROLIJNG LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span. 02 feet R inches Completed 1907 N. Y., N. H. & II. R. R. COMPANY C. M. INC.ERSOLL, Chief EnRincer W. II. MOORE, Engineer of Bridges Four-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Neponset River, Massachusetts, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company In the closed position Designed bv THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 02 feet 8 inches S:7;;irCrxc:xoKc„.c.co ^- Af. HUGHES ^^^' ^^'""^ Engrinccr ' ^iS^ixicer of Bridges Highway and Klectnc Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Chicago River at Taylor Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the open position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 148 feet 7 inches Completed 1904 NEWBURGH & SOUTH SHORE RAILWAY COMPANY H. L. SCni'T.ER. Chi.f En-ineer. Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, Ohio, For the Newburgh & South Shore Railway Company In the Closed Position Shortly after the completion of this bridge, similar bridges were ordered by the B. & O. R. R. Co.. N. Y.. C. & St. L. R. R. Co., N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., N. & W. R. R. Co., Seaboard Air Line R. R., N. & S. Ry. Co., Buenos Ayres Great Southern Ry. Co., Argentine Republic, the Govern- ment of Khartoom, Africa, and others. Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 160 feet Completed 10()4 NEVVBURGH & SOUTH SHORE RAH^WAY COMPANY H. L. SCHULER. Chief Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, Ohio, For the Newburgh & South Shore Railway Company In a partly opened position for the passasTC of a small vessel Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span. 160 feet Completed 1902 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Engineer C R. DART, Bridge Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Chicago River at Main Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 161 feet 8 inches l ^t p fff irf iii Ji i lftp ryfr^ , T !•,[.■ ■I \UiK SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Kngincer C. R. DART, Bridge Engineer SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Chicago River at Main Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the open position. THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 161 feet 8 inches mmi Completed 1903 C. R. R. CO. OF N. J. JOSEPH O. OSGOOD, Chief Engineer A, L. BOWMAN, Bridge Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGES Across Newark Bay, New Jersey, For the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey View on line of tracks during erection. These bridges were erected in the upright position without diverting or delaying railroad traffic and upon completion were operated to the closed position and immediately placed in service for railroad traffic. Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable spans, 120 feet Completed 1003 C. R. R. CO. OF N. J. JOSEPH O. OSGOOD. Chief Engineer A. L. BOWMAN. Bridge Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGES Across Newark Bay, New Jersey, For the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable spans, 120 feet Completed KM HI CITY OF MANISTEE WILLIAM VVENTE, Mayor GEORGE B. PIKE. City Engineer Highway and Fllectric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Manistee River at Maple Street, Manistee, Michigan In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO Chicago ^fovahle span, 81 feet Completed 1906 CITY OF MANISTEE WILLIAM VVENTE, Mayor GEORGE B. PIKE, City Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Manistee River at Maple Street, Manistee, Michigan View showing bridge open for navigation Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 81 feet Completed 1900 CITY OF MANISTEE WILLIAM WENTE, Mayor GEORGE B. PIKE, City Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Manistee River at Maple Street, Manistee, Michigan View on line of roadway with bridge in the open position showing highway blocked against accidents Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 81 feet X Completed 1906 CITY OF MANISTEE WILLIAM WENTE, Mayor GEORGE B. PIKE, City Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Manistee River at Maple Street, Manistee, Michigan View of roadway with bridge in the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago. Movable span, 81 feet Completed 10()7 N. Y., C. & ST. L. R. R. CO. E. K. MART, Chief Engineer A. J. MIMES, BridRe Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio, For the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 100 feet Completed 1007 N. Y., C. & ST. L. R. R. CO. K. E. HART. Chief Engineer A. J. HIMES, Bridge Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio, For the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company In a partly opened position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Chicago Movable span, 160 feet CO. Completed 1907 N. Y., C. & ST. L. R. R. CO. K. K. HART, Chief Engineer A. J. HIMES, Bridge EnRinecr Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio, For the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company View on line of tracks with bridge in closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 100 feet Under construction 1908 CITY OF CAMBRIDGE L. M. HASTINGS, City Engineer Highway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Lechmere Canal at Commercial Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts View showing bridge during erection Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 49 feet Completed 1907 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Engineer C. R. DART, Bridge Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIEKJE Across the Chicago River at 32nd Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 216 feet Completed 1007 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICACC) ISHAM RANDOLPH. Chief Kngineer C. R. DART. Bridge Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Chicago River at 22nd Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In a partly opened position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span. 210 feet Completed 10()7 PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY C. P. MACARTHUR, Prin. Asst. Enjrineer BUFFALO & SUSQUEHANNA RATLVVAV CO. GEORGE O. WAGNER, Engineer Highway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Union Canal at Hamburg Turnpike, Buffalo, New York In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 90 feet Completed 1907 PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY C. P. MACARTHUR, Prin. Asst. Engineer BUFFALO & SUSQUEHANNA RAILWAY CO. GEORGE O. WAGNER, Engineer Highway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Union Canal at Hamburg Turnpike, Buffalo, New York In the open position. Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 90 feet Completed 1907 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH. Chief Engineer C. R. DART, Bridge Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Chicago River at Dearborn Street, Chicago For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the closed position THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, iVA feet inches Completed 1JX)7 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM KANDOLrH, Chief Engineer C R. DART. BridKe Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Chicago River at Dearborn Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In a partly opened position 111^ SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. CVvicaRo Movable apan, 1^ t««^ ® inches Completed 1907 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO I SHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Engineer C. R. DART, Bridge Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Chicago River at Dearborn Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago View showing roadway THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 104 feet 6 inches Completed 1903 B.. k. B. & L. R. R. CO. MELVIN O. ADAMS, President G. M. TOMPSON, Chief Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Crystal Cove, Boston, Massachusetts, For the Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn Railroad Company In the Closed Position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 35 feet 6 inches Completed 10(>7 CITY OF GLOUCKSTKR WINSLOW L. WKIJBER, City Engineer ESSEX COl'NTV COMMISSIONERS WALLACE RATES. Chairman nighway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Gloucester Canal at Western Avenue, Gloucester, Massachusetts In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLINC. LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 46 feet Completed 19()7 CITY OF GLOUCESTER VVINSLOW L. WEBKER, City Engineer ESSEX COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WALLACE BATES, Chairman Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Gloucester Canal at Western Avenue, Gloucester, Massachusetts In the open position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 40 feet Completed 1907 CITY OF GLOUCESTER WINSLOW L. WEBBER. City Engineer ESSEX COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WALLACE BATES. Chairman Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Gloucester Canal at Western Avenue, Gloucester, Massachusetts View showing roadway Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 46 feet Completed 1907 N. Y., N. II. & H. R. R. COMPANY C. M. INGERSOLL, Chief Engineer VV. H. MOORE, Engineer of Bridges Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Connecticut River at Lyme, Connecticut, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company In the closed position This bridge is to be enlarged in the future to a four-track structure Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 158 feet 3 inches Completed 1006 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH. Chief Engineer C. R. DART. Itridgc Kngineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Chicago River at Harrison Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the closed posit inn Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 182 feet Mb. \ i- " " 1 \'^rvx^** vj^y M: Completed 100(5 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANM)OLP[I. Chief EnKtneer C. R. DART, Bridj^c KntjiiKer Iligluvay and Klectric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Chicago River at Harrison Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the open position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span. IS'J feet Completed 1906 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief Engfineer C. R. DART, Bridge Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Chicago River at Harrison Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago View showing roadway Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 182 feet Completed 1906 N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. COMPANY C. M. INGERSOLL, Chief Engineer W. H. MOORE, Engineer of Bridges Four-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Myannus River at Cos Cob, Connecticut, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Chicago Movable span, 81 feet CO. Completed 19<)3 N. Y., N. H. & II. R. R. COMPANY F. S. Cl'KTIS, Chief KiiRinecr W. II. MOORE, Kngineer of Bridges Four-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Pequonnock River at Bridgeport, Connecticut, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company In the closed positif n Desij^ned by THE SCFIERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 88 feet 1 inch Completed 190(J CITY OF NEW YORK Honorable C. LTNDENTIIAL, Commis- sioner of Bridges O. F. NICHOLS, Chief Kn^incer E. A. liYRNE. Engineer in Cliar^je Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Flushing Creek at Jackson Avenue, New York City In the open ami closctl positions Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span. Tl feet inches Completed 1903 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CIIICA(U) ISHAM RANDOLPH. Chief Engineer C. R. DART. Bridge Engineer Highway and Electric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Chicago River at Randolph Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 169 feet 2 inches ^' R. DART, Brider. n . Engineer SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Chicago River at Randolph Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago Opened for navigation THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 169 feet 2 inches c, C, c. Completed 19<)1 /^- Sr. L- KY. CO. CJ. E. stV ^^' I"^^''*'*^^''^^''^'^. Chief KiiKiiieer ^-Ii\'^, Biidge Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio. For the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZKK ROLLING LIFT BRir)(;E CO Chicago Movable span, 120 feet Completed 1901 C, C, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. GEORGK W. KITTREDGF., Chief Engineer O. E. SELBY, Bridge Engineer Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio, For the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company In the open position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 120 feet Double-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OhiOp ►r the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. These views show the Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge at the time of its completion. It also shows the obstructive center-pier swing bridge before its removal and replacement by the new Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge. The new bridge was erected in its upright position without diverting or delaying railroad traffic and upon completion was operated to its closed position and immediately placed in service for railroad traffic. Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 120 feet Completed 1908 DULUTII. RAINY LAKK & WINNIPEG RY. H. T. HARE, Chief Engineer CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY W. L. MACKENZIE, Bridge Engineer Single-Track SGHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Rainy River at Pither's Point, Minnesota, For the Duluth, Rainy Lake & Winnipeg and Canadian Northern Railways In the closed position Completed 1904 ^1^S^f.r,^^STRlCT OF CHICAGO C-r i^. DAl^^^OT.Pti, Chief Engine* ^' Bridge Engineer ineer Highway SGHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Chicago River at Loomis Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 177 feet 6 inches Completed IJXH SAXITARV DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ISHAM RANDOLPH, Chief I':nKineer C. R. DART, Bridge Engineer Highway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Chicago River at Loomis Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago In the open position DesiRTved by THR SC\\ERZH.R ROUUING UIFT BRUGGE. CO. CKicaffo Movable span, IH ^^et « Highway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the City Ship Canal at South Michigan Street, Buffalo, New York In the closed position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Chicago Movable span, 110 feet Completed 1004 CITY OF BUFFALO FRANCIS (;. WARD. Commissioner of riihlic VVorka CFFAHrj:S M. MORSE. Chief fuiKineer HiKhway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the City Ship Canal at South Michigan Street, Buffalo, New York In the open position Designed by THE SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE CO. Cliicago Movable span, 110 feet Completed 1905 N. v.. N. H. & TT. R. R. COMPANY C. M. IXCERSOLL, Chief Engineer W. n. MOORE, EnKineer of IJrirlRcs Four-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across Saugatuck River at Westport, Connecticut, For the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company III the closed position l)c'-i!4iuM\ by TIIK SCHERZER ROELINC, EIET HRIDC.E CO. ChicaK«» Movable sy)an, 7C feet In ill* fllTCti J'-J^r^JJin Double TTai<'tc.i 100:1 swn \in' hisiKicr or ciwcaco /Sn.WJ KANDOU'II. Chi.f I'.iiKinriT (*. K. l>.\Kr. IJii.IkM- I'.iurinrrr FliKhwav and Klectric kailwav SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Chicago River at 18th Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago Tn the closed position Designed by TFIR SCIIRRZER KOLIJNC, I.I FT BKIDdK CO. Chicago Movaljle span, 101 fec't 8 inches Completed 10()3 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CIIICAC.O ISIIAM RANDOUni. Chief KiiRineer C. R. DART, llridKc KnRineer Highway aiul Klectric Railway SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Chicago River at 18th Street, Chicago, For the Sanitary District of Chicago Opened for navigation Designed by TlIK SCHERZER ROLLINC. LIFT BRTDCIE CO. Chicago Movable span, 161 feet 8 inches In the Open Position C. C. \ ST. L. R. R. C.EORGE VV. KITTRKIK'.E. Chief Engineer ^>- E. SELBY. Hridge Kngineer In the Closed position SinRlc-Track SCHERZER ROLLING LIFT BRIDGE Across the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, Ohio, For the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Completed IJK)! Designed by THK SCMKRZKR R()LLIX(; LIFT RRIDCiH: C(X Chicago 1 \ R ■K^j^-:?;- i.f,')?;^»'~*^^'- '''t^:,f. ifr^-^u^- ¥'K.:e,r iHb. o J^4^-^' ., '•*^ .(s:^^: ^i^'lfe?-;?? ^f^^*i ^•^Vl^ ■^k.utJ. ?-^»..,,^.: :fi^ L. ^' -V^. -i, t- - f rv ■".& . r'^ £ng T4S.0a Cabot 5£l«nc« 006532904 3 2044 091 97 036 "^li^kNa^ i^