Nostalgia & History > The moment of truth for the Carquinez bridge

Did they complete the 1958 bridge the same way?
https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/213338?ln=en&v=uv#?xywh=393%2C71%2C1073%2C609

Wonder what was an acceptable misfit.

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wonder what was an acceptable misfit.

Kind of looks like the middle span might have just hung from those vertical members.

I always liked the looks of that pair of bridges. Too bad the older one couldn't have been saved. When it was being torn down, maybe about 2007 or so, I remember driving westbound on I-80 through Berkeley. Traffic was moving out of the right-hand lane to go around what initially looked like a ladder in the road. When I got closer it turned out to be a 10- or 20-foot-long section of one of the latticed girders from the bridge (apparently). I guess it must have hit the University overpass and bounced out of the truck. There was a dump truck full of scrap on the shoulder a little bit farther on...

I wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kind of looks like the middle span might have just hung from those vertical members.

Evidently, more or less. The designer called this, and the other one over the opposite channel, the "suspended spans." Each was only anchored horizontally at one end, with the other end being an expansion joint: "For simplicity of details and for greater security against longitudinal forces (including possible earthquake effects), each suspended span is fixed to the tower cantilever arm, the entire 11-in. expansion of the 1100-foot span being provided for at a single expansion joint (the shore end of the suspended span)...."

Each suspended span was raised in only 30 to 35 minutes, as it turns out, with no mishaps. The Quebec Bridge disasters were apparently on everyone's minds during the planning and execution.

The above is from a few articles and papers, containing a lot of information, that I found:
--D. B. Steinman, "The Carquinez Strait Bridge," Engineering and Contracting, September 1927, pp. 405-409: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Engineering_and_Contracting/3BIzLeFFq-sC?gbpv=1&pg=PA405
--D. B. Steinman, "The Design of the Carquinez Strait Bridge," Proceedings of the Brooklyn Engineers' Club, July 1927, pp. 20-41: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Proceedings_Constitution_and_By_laws/dcEdAQAAIAAJ?gbpv=1&pg=RA6-PA20
--C. F. Goodrich, "Erection of Carquinez Strait Bridge," Proceedings of the Brooklyn Engineers' Club, July 1927, pp. 42-47: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Proceedings_Constitution_and_By_laws/dcEdAQAAIAAJ?gbpv=1&pg=RA6-PA42

These also turned up some railroad content--

Apparently the bridge was designed with provisions for a single-track electric railway to be installed in place of the center traffic lane at some future date. I had no idea. Obviously this never happened. Perhaps this was the basis for the rumor, around the time the bridge was demolished, that it had been offered to BART for a potential Vallejo extension. Anyone know if there was any substance to this rumor?

The Goodrich paper also gives us a date (circa 1925) for a little line change on the SP through Crockett. I've seen a photo of the original alignment somewhere, but I can't remember where. It was something (very roughly) like I've sketched in the attached map.

---

Thanks for all that. It's always been a puzzle that
the 1927 bridge had a 30-ft roadway -- three-lane
highways might seem attractive on land, but why
build a one-mile three lane bridge? Unless you
were going to add a streetcar line. Presumably
when tolls flowed in more than expected
they decided, who needs a streetcar.

Crockett, Colfax, and I think Hillsdale -- three
depots not parallel to the track, since the track
got moved away from them. The chart says the
line got shortened 0.06 mile, so SP timetables
showed MP 28.9 = MP 29.0.

Things were different in California of 1927, the middle lane was often designated as a passing lane, for use by either direction of travel. The possible growth was not understood especially during the depression years. There is material in the Road-Geek part of the Internet questioning the need to cross the larger waterways, afterall there was a perfectly fine ferry running out of Martinez.

+ it's not real obvious but all bridges have to be designed for expansion and contraction, steel bridges have at least one end sitting on rollers or a sliding steel plate. It's a major issue that has caused recent bridge failures as the method of travel requires maintainance and some folks, subsequently some bridges, just don't get it.

There is some info on the Internet for State of California plans for replacing the ex-SP Martinez bridge for all passenger train use. The plan I saw was for the crossing to be in a different place. Kinda the dreamers concept but it's something to be aware of.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/26 10:22 by TCnR.

A closer look
https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/216356?ln=en&v=uv#?xywh=-304%2C142%2C2149%2C1220

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A closer look
> https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/216356

Easy to see the eyebars that will support the suspended span in this view.

Will support it while they're adding the rest of the steel, you mean?

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will support it while they're adding the rest of the steel, you mean?

They added some horizontal members, yes, but it looks like those eyebars were it for vertical support for the suspended spans: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca3089.photos.383437p/resource/

The full set of Historic American Engineering Record photos of the 1927 bridge (HAER CA-297) can be found here: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca3089/

Some nice photos there. Brings back some memories. Glad they documented it as well as they did.

I'm not a Bridge Engineer, otherwise this would be literally textbook material. We do have a few Bridge Engineers on TO so it would be interesting to hear details.

In the meantime here's a Library of Congress photo showing the transition where the two different techniques meet, it appears to be a big eye bar. Eyebars were one of the Technologies that condemned the Eastern side of the SF Bay Bridge so I'm surprised and not surprised to see this photo. It kinda says if you crossed the bridge successfully it was a mathmatical event as much as an Engineering feat. Suppose the thermal expansion / contraction was taken up somewhere else.

+ thats kinda scary

That last Berkeley photowas interesting for the background as well, Mare Island and the ferry boat sitting next to the cliff. 

Here's the LOC link and the general folder:

https://www.loc.gov/resource/hhh.ca3089.photos/?sp=37

https://www.loc.gov/resource/hhh.ca3089.photos/?sp=1&st=gallery

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/26 13:56 by TCnR.

---

iirc the problem with eyebars is inspection of the pin and the hidden area under the flange of the pin. The eastern Bay bridge had stacked eyebars which meant the inner eyebars could not be inspected for cracks, corrosion or other wear. They removed something in one of the eyebar stacks and couldn't get the parts to fit back in, so the bridge was in big trouble until they did put it all back together.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> iirc the problem with eyebars is inspection of the pin and the hidden area under the flange of the
> pin. The eastern Bay bridge had stacked eyebars which meant the inner eyebars could not be
> inspected for cracks, corrosion or other wear. They removed something in one of the eyebar stacks
> and couldn't get the parts to fit back in, so the bridge was in big trouble until they did put it
> all back together.

I thought the Bay Bridge had an actual failure of an eyebar, but maybe I'm misremembering. At any rate there was a temporary repair that was easily visible if you knew where to look. I seem to recall this stayed in place until the eastern span closed in 2013.

Found a couple good articles on the 1958 bridge:

Leonard C. Hollister, "Carquinez Project," California Highways and Public Works, Jan-Feb 1956, pp. 24-29 and 66: https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa195657calirich/page/n29/

L. C. Hollister, "New Parallel Bridge," California Highways and Public Works, Jan-Feb 1959, pp. 1-12 and 63-64: https://archive.org/details/cavol3738liforniahighwa195859calirich/page/n382/

From the photos on pages 3 and 7 of the second article, it looks like a pretty small gap remaining to be filled in a couple different instances, so I take it they didn't build the suspended spans offsite and then lift them into place. There's also no mention of a lifting operation.

In this pic   https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca3089.photos.383437p/resource/
the suspended span is on the left? Hasn't the bottom
of it been riveted to the cantilever?

Yes cracked eyebar.
Forget if it was on the straight shank section or something around the eye. Remember a weld or break across the flat section a foot or two from the eyebar. Should be plenty of photos ... somewhere.
There was also a foundation problem, designed to and met the standards when built but not the modern earthquake standards.

+ Pieces of the info in here and here:

https://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/thesis/failures/MKP/failures/failures.wikispaces.com/Oakland_Bay_Bridge_Eyebar_Failure.html

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Eyebar-just-one-of-Bay-Bridge-s-many-problems-3211368.php



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/26 15:53 by TCnR.

The Berkeley photo referenced reminds me of the 2 Quebec bridge disasters... The first being complete collapse of the bridge during construction, the second being the mishap lifting the center span into place, causing it to fall into the St. Lawrence. Dangerous work to say the least.  

Bob Phelps
Micanopy, FL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/26 05:25 by RNP47.