This beautiful bridge is a unique structure that features through plate girder approaches with a through truss main span, a very unusual combination of visually contrasted bridge types. At the same time, this span arrangement is aesthetically pleasing, with the smaller low-profile approach spans leading up to the large main span. The bridge is an example of two individually well-known structural types combined into a single structure. In addition, the main truss span is highly unusual. Although the connections are riveted, this is still a lightweight style truss bridge, using member sizes similar to those seen on pin connected structures. The bridge is also skewed, quite noticeably, which makes a bridge of this age noteworthy and uncommon. The truss span on the Callender Road bridge is similar to the truss span on the Harpersfield Bridge. Note the portal bracing design and the unusual feature of v-lacing on both the top and bottom sides of the top chord/end post. The span on Harpersfield was attributed to the Riverside Bridge Company, but it was also built in 1913, the same year as the Callender Road Bridge, in response to a flood that damaged these bridges. However, the Massillon Bridge Company was who reportedly built the Callender Road Bridge. The similarities between the bridges could indicate the county had some input on the design of the bridges despite having different builders construct them. If so, this would represent the trend that was occurring at this time to have the highway agency direct bridge companies to build bridges to the agency's design, not the company's own design. All of these significant traits of the Callender Road Bridge should have been more than enough reason to preserve the bridge instead of demolishing it. Also, the fact that this bridge is on the Grand River, a river designated a "Wild and Scenic River" by the state should be further reason to preserve the bridge. However in the past officially designating rivers as scenic doesn't do anything for a historic bridge, and can even help condemn them, despite the fact that the bridges are an attribute for the river and heritage preservation is one of the stated goals of a Wild and Scenic River designation. See the Shanley Road Bridge for details of where a scenic river designation aided in demolition. If anyone wonders why HistoricBridges.org purposely excludes covered bridges from the website, look at this bridge and look at Ashtabula County as a whole. The county has preserved every single wooden covered bridge they have. Yet, only a few of their historic metal truss bridges have been preserved. Others like this one are being demolished! Metal truss bridges are no less deserving of attention than covered bridges. This bias toward covered bridges and against all other forms of historic bridge is a nationwide problem. There was absolutely no reason to demolish this bridge. It could have and should have been preserved just like the covered bridges.
Information and Findings From Ohio's Historic Bridge Inventory
The bridge carries a 2 lane road over a stream in a sparsely developed, rural setting.
The 4-span, 253'-long bridge consists of a 130'-long rivet-connected Pratt thru truss main span, two flanking 56'-long thru girder spans, and one 27'-long steel stringer span. The truss span is skewed. It is traditionally composed of built-up members and gusset plates at the panel points. The end posts are lightly composed of channels with lacing. The lower chords are back-to-back angles with battens. The bridge has a concrete deck supported on rolled stringers framed into the rolled floorbeams. The bridge is supported on concrete abutments and piers. Plumber pipe railings are set to the roadway faces of the truss lines.
The bridge has the aspects of integrity. There is some loss of original fabric from deterioration of the steel, especially in stiffeners and web of thru girder spans at the roadway level.
Summary of Significance
The 1913 rivet-connected Pratt thru truss bridge is one of four extant examples of the design in the county that were placed to replace ones lost in a flood. All were placed in 1913, which makes them among the
earliest in the state. Why there are so few riveted through truss bridges in Ohio, when the technology to do field riveting was common by 1900, is not known. The four in the county are determined to be technologically significant
because they are early examples within the Ohio context. It is representative of the standard, riveted, Pratt thru-truss type/design that was popular on Ohio's roads from about 1900 to 1940. The truss superstructure is complete with
the exception of some loss of fabric from corrosion. The Massillon Bridge & Structural Iron Company of Massillon, Ohio, was one of the many Ohio bridge-fabricating companies that served the regional market in steel highway bridges
during the early 20th century. Its designs of this period are not distinctive in and of themselves but reflect the increasing standardization of detail that was the hallmark of rivet-connected highway truss type/design.
The bridge is one of over 40 extant riveted thru truss bridges of all designs built between 1904 and 1959. This example is representative of the population and has moderate significance. There are also many riveted thru truss bridges servicing the many rail lines in the state.
Bridge Considered Historic By Survey: Yes
This historic bridge has been demolished. This map is shown for reference purposes only.
Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude):
Search For Additional Bridge Listings:
© Copyright 2003-2022, 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.