View Information About HSR Ratings
This impressive bridge is a very rare example of a multi-span truss bridge as well as a pin-connected Camelback truss in Ontario. The bridge has excellent historic integrity with no major alterations, adding to its significance. Aside from some minor pack rust and section loss noted around some of the bottom chord connections, the bridge's trusses remain in decent condition, however there is no paint to protect the steel of the truss from future deterioration. A substantial build-up of dirt was noted around the bearings of the bridge. A simple program of bridge washing where a truck is brought to the bridge to wash the dirt off the bridge with a hose is a low-cost maintenance effort that can go a long way to preventing section loss to the all-important steel of the bridge. Also, while more costly, a comprehensive rehabilitation of this bridge to address section loss, and to blast clean and paint the truss superstructure would prepare this bridge for another century of service.
In assessing the heritage significance of bridges in the Waterloo Region, a scoring system outlined in the 1991 Ontario Heritage Bridge Program developed by the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Culture was employed. In general, this rating system works quite well. It evaluates most of the aspects of a heritage bridge that give it value, such as historic integrity, rarity of design, aesthetic value, function as a community gateway or landmark, etc. However, it occasionally does display some flaws. The Winterbourne Bridge is one of two particularly good examples, the other being the nearby Conestogo Bridge. While common sense observation of the Winterbourne Bridge would suggest that the bridge is an exceedingly rare example of a multi-span pin-connected truss bridge in Ontario, and an equally rare example of a multi-span Camelback truss in Ontario, when the Ontario Heritage Bridge Program rating system is applied to the bridge the score is only 52, barely qualifying as a heritage bridge. In reviewing the score for this bridge, HistoricBridges.org believes the Ontario Heritage Bridge Program rating system does not give enough consideration to the enhanced significance of a multi-span truss bridge. Longer structures indicate a greater engineering achievement, and they tend to be less common than shorter examples. Additionally, The Ontario Heritage Bridge Program rating system also does not assign additional points for the specific presence of pin connections on truss bridges, despite that fact that rivet-connected truss bridges vastly outnumber pin-connected truss bridges in Ontario. The Ontario Heritage Bridge Program rating system is a useful tool, since it does cover many of the elements that make a bridge significant and the process used to evaluate bridges is relatively straightforward and simple. However, perhaps future improvements to these apparent shortcomings in the rating system could make the rating system even more effective and useful.
Information and Findings From Waterloo Region Heritage Bridge InventoryWaterloo Region Assigned Heritage Ratings: Overall Score: 52. (Heritage Bridge scores range from 50 up to generally 78) Not Listed in Top Ten Waterloo Region Heritage Bridge List. View Heritage Bridge Inventory Data Sheets |
Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude):
Search For Additional Bridge Listings:
Additional Maps:
Google Streetview (If Available)
GeoHack (Additional Links and Coordinates)
Apple Maps (Via DuckDuckGo Search)
Apple Maps (Apple devices only)
Android: Open Location In Your Map or GPS App
Flickr Gallery (Find Nearby Photos)
Wikimedia Commons (Find Nearby Photos)
Directions Via Sygic For Android
Directions Via Sygic For iOS and Android Dolphin Browser
© Copyright 2003-2024, HistoricBridges.org. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: HistoricBridges.org is a volunteer group of private citizens. HistoricBridges.org is NOT a government agency, does not represent or work with any governmental agencies, nor is it in any way associated with any government agency or any non-profit organization. While we strive for accuracy in our factual content, HistoricBridges.org offers no guarantee of accuracy. Information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. Information could include technical inaccuracies or errors of omission. Opinions and commentary are the opinions of the respective HistoricBridges.org member who made them and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, including any outside photographers whose images may appear on the page in which the commentary appears. HistoricBridges.org does not bear any responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of this or any other HistoricBridges.org information. Owners and users of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org information.
