th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

MOVABLE SPAN BRIDGES OF NSW: A NEW

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

I. Berger 1, D. Healy2 and Mark Tilley2

1
NSW Roads and Maritime, North Sydney, NSW
2
GHD Pty Ltd, Newcastle, NSW

ABSTRACT
NSW Roads and Maritime Services manage 26 movable span bridges of which 11 are still
operational. These bridges were the subject of a recently completed study undertaken jointly by
RMS and GHD Newcastle which focused on the components of each bridge for the purposes of
detailed heritage assessment, conservation and operational enhancement. The majority of
bridges within the study can be broadly categorized as the bascule or vertical lift type. Detailed
assessment has led to the recognition of particular subtypes within these broader groupings.
This paper will explore the international origins of movable span bridges and detail the defining
characteristics of these subtypes and suggest a new naming convention for each.

INTRODUCTION
Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) currently manages twenty six movable span bridges in
NSW and of these fourteen are still operational. Between 1802 and 2005 there were five
distinct types of movable bridge types built which included pontoon, lift, bascule, swing and
sliding spans. In total 66 movable span bridges were constructed in NSW but many of these
have now been demolished or are permanently closed.
The detailed historical research into the development of movable span bridges in Europe and
America has enabled a better appreciation of the influences that affected the design of the 48
vertical lift span and bascule bridges built in NSW between 1882 and 2005. Through a
comparative analysis of the lifting mechanisms of these bridges it has been possible to develop
a classification system that identifies each of these bridges as belonging to one of 13 types; 8
for the vertical lift span bridges and 5 for the bascule bridges. The first generation of 6 vertical lift
span subtypes identified can be properly recognised as Australian adaptations with no
international equivalent.
The movable span bridges in NSW were split into three main types:
1. Vertical Lift Span Bridges
1.1. First generation – Old
1.2. Second generation – New
1.3. Table – Pit
2. Bascule Span Bridges
2.1. First generation – Drawbridge
2.2. Second generation – Bélidor
2.3. Third generation – Modern
3. Swing Span Bridges
The design and development of swing span bridges in NSW are not discussed in this paper.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 1

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Within each movable span bridge type there were identified a number of subsets as shown in
Table 1. This classification provides a better understanding of the performance and
shortcomings of those movable span bridges that are still operational as these issues appear
common to all bridges within a type.

Table 1 – Movable span bridges by generation including subset types

Type / Study bridges Informed the study Built

No.
I VERTICAL LIFT SPAN BRIDGES
I.i First Generation – Vertical Old
Balranald TYPE
Balranald 1882
North Bourke 1883
Brewarrina TYPE
1 Brewarrina 1888
Mulwala TYPE
Mulwala 1893
Wentworth 1893
Tocumwal TYPE
Tocumwal 1895
Wilcannia 1896
Swan Hill TYPE
2 Swan Hill 1896
3 Dunmore Bridge 1899
4 Tooleybuc Bridge 1925
5 Abbotsford 1928
Hinton Bridge TYPE
6 Hinton 1901
Murwillumbah 1901
7 Cobram Bridge 1902
8 Barham Bridge 1905
I.ii Second Generation – Vertical New
Robinvale TYPE
Robinvale 1925
9 Gonn Crossing 1926
10 Mororo 1935
Boyds Bay 1937
Martin 1940
11 Nyah 1941
Ryde TYPE
12 Ryde 1935
13 Hexham 1952
14 Batemans Bay 1956
15 Wardell 1964
16 Harwood 1966
I.iii Table Lift
17 Wentworth 1969

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 2

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

No. Type / Study bridges Informed the study Built

No.
II BASCULE SPAN BRIDGES
II.i First Generation
Drawbridge TYPE
Belmore 1891
Camden Haven 1891
Sheas Creek 1892
Kinchela Creek 1893
II.ii Second Generation
Bélidor TYPE
Telegraph Point (timber) 1902
Swansea (first - timber) 1909
18 Glebe 1905
Darling Point 1905
19 McFarlane 1906
Kyalite 1912
20 Carrathool 1922
Sheas Creek Rail 1925
II.iii Third Generation – Modern Bascules
Strauss TYPE
Spit (first) 1924
Menindee 1927
21 Narooma 1931
Lansdowne 1934
Barney Point 1936
Rolling Lift - Rall TYPE
22 Grafton 1932
Simple Trunnion TYPE
23 Swansea (north bound) 1955
24 Spit 1958
25 Swansea (south bound) 1989
Broadwater (Council owned) 2005
III SWING SPAN BRIDGES
Wentworth Park 1850
Pyrmont 1857
Glebe Island 1862
Hay 1873
Gladesville 1884
Fig Tree 1885
Pyrmont TYPE
Pyrmont 1902
26 Glebe Island 1903

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 3

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

TYPE ONE: VERTICAL LIFT SPAN BRIDGES

Vertical lift span bridges are movable bridges which rise vertically and remain horizontal
throughout operation. The first generation of vertical lift span bridges in Australia are of
particular interest as there is a fascinating evolution in designs, with a number of distinguished
Australian engineers contributing to the body of knowledge of each subset.

European origins
The history of the vertical lift span bridge dates prior to 1840, with one of the first bridges built
over the Danube River at Vienna. This bridge consisted of a 30 ft. opening and could raise
approximately 6.5 ft. Another vertical lift bridge was built in the Netherlands at Amsterdam over
the Poldervaart Canal during 1846, however both of these designs have limited information
available and the earliest detailed account is of a vertical lift bridge completed in England in
1848 (Tyrrell, 1912).
The need for this vertical lift span bridge arose in 1846 when the late London and Croydon
Railway Company wanted to connect its main line with the river Thames line at Grove Lane
Dock. The connection line was to be only 1 mile in length; however it required crossings over
the Grand Surrey Canal. The Parliament passed an Act in the same year approving the new line
though it was stipulated in the Act that no more of the Canal Company’s land should be taken
than was absolutely requisite for laying down the rails.
These stringent requirements rendered the implementation of a swing-bridge unacceptable as
the central pier of the bridge would occupy an excessive amount of land. The “telescope” type
bridge and “bascule” type bridge were also considered, however the telescope type also
occupied excessive land and the bascule type appeared less advantages for both efficiency and
economy (Hood, 1850).
The design that met the fore mentioned requirements was proposed by R. J. Hood for a new
type of moveable bridge which he generally named a “vertical lift bridge”. The design broadly
consisted of a platform that was to be suspended at all four corners by wire ropes which pass
over pulleys fixed on four pairs of cast-iron standards. Hand gearing, shafts and counter weights
were the components of the mechanism that would cause the lift motion, with a mechanical
advantage of twenty six times achieved by the design (Hood, 1850).

Figure 1 – Second design lift bridge over the Grand Surrey Canal by Hood (Humber, 1857)
Due to unknown circumstances the original bridge was removed within 10 years of completion
and was replaced by a second similar vertical lift bridge also designed by R. J. Hood (Figure 1).
Variations of this type of bridge received limited usage on other canals and across small rivers.

North American influences

Vertical lift bridges built to Hood’s design were characterised by their small size and application
to mainly canals or small inland rivers. This design was sufficient in most respects for
applications in Europe. However in the USA there was a requirement to provide movable
bridges crossing over larger rivers.
This led to the next notable evolution in vertical lift span bridge designs prepared by the
American engineer Squire Whipple and first constructed in the 1873 Erie Canal Bridge in Utica.
The designs of Whipple continued to progress in the USA and Canada though no bridges of this
type were built in NSW.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 4

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

The development of vertical bridges continued in the USA with a design prepared by Dr J. A. L.
Waddell. The first design was for a vertical lift span bridge over the Chicago River and it was
opened in late 1893 (Griggs, 2006). This bridge became the template for a number of large
span vertical lift bridges, though further improvements took place to the designs and lifting
mechanisms and opening span arrangements. The striking features of the design are the large
towers that have sufficient inherent stiffness to prevent encroachment on the span, also the
movable span is a truss and mechanical components consist of heavy machinery and motorised
components not previously used in vertical lift span bridges. Waddell type bridges were widely
adopted in NSW. Figure 2 shows a Waddell Bridge built in 1913, and there are many similarities
that are apparent and it provides a clear comparison to the NSW Ryde Bridge built in 1935.

Figure 2: Rail bridge over the Williamette River at Salem, Oregon (Source: Gerald W. Williams
Collection, Oregon State University Archives, Corvallis Oregon)
Simultaneous with the design of large scale movable bridges was the improvement of vertical lift
span bridges over small rivers and canals. Waddell’s firm designed a number of relatively small
vertical lift span bridges that used steel plate posts for vertical components and web plate
girders as the movable span (Waddell, 1916). This design was adopted for the St. John and
Quebec Railway Bridge over the Oromocto River in New Brunswick. It is likely that such designs
influenced the second generation vertical lift bridges in NSW, such as Gonn Crossing and is
evident when comparing the two bridges (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: St. John and Quebec railway bridge over the Oromocto River in New Brunswick and
Gonn Crossing over the Murray River (Source: RMS)

NSW Vertical Lift Span Bridges First Generation: Old

The era from 1840 onwards realised various vertical lift span bridge designs and numerous
bridges were built throughout Europe and USA before the first vertical lift span bridge appeared
in NSW at Balranald in 1882 (Figures 4 and 5).

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 5

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

It is difficult to ascertain how this design was informed, though it is plausible that the designs of
bridges over canals in Europe were used as a basis. Reviews of early European designs
against the Balranald drawing set do show a number of similarities, specifically with the tower
arrangement and sheave orientation.

Figure 4: Paddle Steamer passing Balranald Bridge in the 1890s (Source: DMR HO23720)
The first generation designs were continually improved upon and a number of ingenious
modifications were implemented by different Australian engineers over this early period. The
following is a summary of this evolution of designs, the issues that were encountered and how
they were overcome by each successive vertical lift span bridge.
The Balranald Bridge completed in 1882 and designed by J. H. Daniels was a wrought iron
lattice bridge with independent towers and longitudinally oriented chain wheels. This design had
trouble with the towers deflecting inwards and pinching the lift span. In addition the lifting
mechanisms at each end of the span were independently operated which created difficulty in
achieving a uniform lift making jamming more susceptible during operation. This design was
also adopted for the North Bourke Bridge built in 1883. These two bridges form the first subset
of vertical lift span bridges in NSW and are hereafter referred to as the “Balranald Type”.

Figure 5: Balranald Bridge Elevation – 1882 (Source: RMS)

To improve operation Percy Allan made modifications to the design of the Brewarrina Bridge
completed in 1888 (Figure 6). The modifications were simply to add longitudinal girders to the
superstructure, therefore minimising the differential tower deflections and to connect the chain
wheels by shafts. Although this design was an improvement, retaining the dual winch lift
mechanism still resulted in unsatisfactory operating performance. Allan’s design innovations
were limited to this one structure which forms the sole member of the second subset known as
the “Brewarrina Type”.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 6

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 6: Brewarrina Bridge 1888 (Source: RMS)

In 1896 modifications to the mechanisms of Balranald and North Bourke Bridges were made by
E. M. De Burgh. These modifications included the introduction of extra chords to the tower
braces and replacing the lifting mechanism with a wire rope arrangement. It is noteworthy that
the addition of the tower brace chords changed the member to a lattice girder from a Warren
type truss girder.
The next design progression was due to alterations made by J. A. McDonald in his plans of the
Mulwala (Figure 7) and Wentworth Bridges both built in 1893. These are both described
hereafter as the “Mulwala Type” forming the third subset of vertical lift span bridges and
introduced new concepts which enabled future design and operational improvements. This is
the first time that wire ropes were used as an improvement over the chains used previously as
this reduced weight and friction in the operating system. Also for the first time the lifting
mechanism was designed to be operated by a single person as all the sheaves were
mechanically linked by shafts thus ensuring a uniform lift. Nevertheless, issues arose with the
design due to the weight and location of the overhead winch mechanism causing excessive
deflections to the longitudinal girders thus pinching the shafts and inducing additional torsion
(Dare, 1896). There were also some issues with the ropes unwinding.

Figure 7: Mulwala Bridge 1893 (Source: RMS)

J. A. McDonald made a second attempt at improving vertical lift span bridges in 1895 with his
design of Tocumwal Bridge (Figure 8). The modifications made included changing the direction
of the sheaves to be transverse and the counter weights were also hung on the outsides of the
towers. Despite these improvements, the shafts were still pinching due to deflections most likely
arising from inadequate tower bracing and further enhancements were still required. The
Wilcannia Bridge over the Darling River completed in 1896 also adopted a similar design.
Collectively these form the “Tocumwal Type” as the fourth subset of vertical lift span bridges.

Figure 8: Tocumwal Bridge 1895 (Source; RMS)

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 7

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

In 1896 the Percy Allan design of Swan Hill Bridge (Figure 9) became the new standard for
NSW vertical lift span designs. It represents a transition from the designs of J. A. McDonald and
it is interesting to note that an alternate set of drawings were created for Swan Hill and signed
by J. A. McDonald (Figure 10). The design was similar to Tocumwal Bridge however it was
never built. The main alterations introduced by Percy Allan were to redesign the lifting
mechanism by lowering the previously overhead winch back down to deck level and connecting
all sheaves via longitudinal and transverse shafts. These design improvements appear to have
prevented the bridge from jamming during operation. This design was adopted for Dunmore
Bridge over the Paterson River built in 1899, Tooleybuc Bridge over the Murray River built in
1925 and Abbotsford Bridge over the Murray River built in 1928. These four bridges collectively
make up the “Swan Hill Type” which forms the fifth subset of vertical lift bridges.

Figure 9: Swan Hill Bridge Design (Constructed) by Allan dated 1896 (Source: RMS)

Figure 10: Swan Hill Design (Alternate) by McDonald drawings dated 1893 (Source: RMS)
Hinton Bridge was completed in 1901 to a design by De Burgh with the sheaves oriented back
in a longitudinal direction (Figure 11). The design also linked the sheaves at either end of the
span with wire ropes as opposed to shafts thus effectively reducing the amount of friction in the
mechanism. In 1895 De Burgh first tried this arrangement whilst enhancing the operational
performance of Brewarrina Bridge. Hinton Bridge marked the first opportunity to apply this
design on a new structure. This arrangement was adopted for another three bridges designed
by De Burgh, with each having slight improvements including the implementation of extra ropes
into the system, improving aesthetics of transverse tower braces and adding road gates. These
bridges include the Murwillumbah Bridge over the Tweed River built in 1901, Cobram Bridge
over the Murray River built in 1902 and Barham-Koondrook Bridge also over the Murray River
built in 1905. Collectively these four bridges form the “Hinton Type” as the sixth subset of
vertical lift bridges.

Figure 11: Hinton Bridge 1901 (Source: RMS)

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 8

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

NSW Vertical Lift Span Bridges Second Generation: New

The second generation of NSW vertical lift bridges is defined by a close replication of bridge
types widely used in North America. NSW’s design input is much less apparent from this time
onwards. The next generation commenced with the design of the Robinvale Bridge over the
Murray River built in 1925. This design was of steel construction with the most striking feature
being the adoption of slender steel columns for the tower components. Further modifications
were made to the counterweights with two larger weights being implemented instead of four
smaller weights at each corner. This style was applied with very little change to another four
vertical lift bridges including Gonn Crossing over the Murray River built in 1926 (Figure 13),
Mororo Bridge over the Clarence River built in 1935, Boyds Bay Bridge over Terranora Creek
built in 1937 and Nyah Bridge over the Murray River built in 1941. Collectively these five bridges
form the “Robinvale Type” as the seventh subset of vertical lift bridges.

Figure 13: Robinvale Type: Gonn Crossing Bridge 1926 (Source: RMS)
The Ryde Bridge completed in 1935 was an adoption of the American Waddell type vertical lift
span bridge design which had been built from 1893 onwards. The bridge is considerably larger
than previous vertical lift span bridges built in NSW and the components consist of a truss lift
span, independent towers and a machinery house. Operation for the bridge was provided for the
first time by electrical motors with a backup petrol motor installed in case power outages were
experienced. This design was typically adopted when a larger span with greater waterway
clearance was required. Another four bridges of this type were completed including Martin
Bridge built in 1940, Hexham Bridge built in 1952 (Figure 14), Batemans Bay Bridge built in
1956, Wardell Bridge built in 1964 and Harwood Bridge built in 1966. These five bridges
collectively form the “Ryde Type” as the eighth subset of vertical lift span bridges.

Figure 14: Ryde Type: Hexham Bridge 1952 (Source: Karmalsky Design Report, RMS)
In addition, two steel truss bridges were designed so that conversion to a Ryde type bridge
would be possible if conditions on the waterway required. These were the Iron Cove Bridge at
Drummoyne and the Karuah Bridge on the Pacific Highway at Karuah. The designs reveal that
the central piers were reinforced to carry the extra weight of the towers and the deck joints on
the adjacent span made readily removable to facilitate opening.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 9

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

NSW Vertical Lift Span Sole Table Bridge

In NSW the first and only table bridge was constructed over the Darling River at Wentworth in
1969. Due to the large time lapse between the early European table bridges and the design
adopted for Wentworth, it is difficult to ascertain whether these designs informed the bridge. The
European bridges do however provide a reference point and knowledge of their existence may
have been sufficient to initiate its use in NSW.
The design consists of four hydraulic rams positioned at each corner of the movable span
(Figure 15). No other mechanical advantage is provided by means of a counterweighted system
and the hydraulic mechanism is solely relied upon for the operation of the bridge.

Figure 15: Wentworth Bridge (Source: RMS 1969)

TYPE TWO: BASCULE BRIDGES

The term “bascule” originates from the French language and translates as “a balance” (Waddell,
1916). They are defined as those bridges which operate by raising the load-carrying side whilst
lowering the balancing side, for example the action of a simple seesaw. This action can be
achieved through considerable variations in geometry, mechanisms and operation leading to a
great diversity of designs. Notwithstanding this, components common to all bascule bridge
designs include: leaf spans which pivot off a horizontal trunnion, variable force counterweights,
locks and gearing.
The bascule bridge design is utilised when there is a need for infinite headway at a river
crossing. This was often the requirement on coastal rivers where masted vessels were frequent
users of the waterway (Dare, 1896). Further advantages of the design included the speed of
operation and keeping the deeper river passage clear from pier obstructions as is the case with
the often large central pier of swing bridges (Waddell, ibid).

European origins
The bascule bridge is an evolution of the common medieval drawbridges that were utilised
mainly as military devices. When fully raised they would prevent passage across a channel or
moat thus providing protection to inhabitants (Hovey, 1926). It appears that the size of the spans
was originally limited due to the reliance on manual haulage to operate the drawbridge (Figure
16). Usually, it was a pulley, on one side of the entrance wall.
The mechanical advantage of this arrangement means that the effort required to lift the span
begins at a maximum then dissipates as the drawbridge reaches the top of its motion so there is
a controlled closing of the drawbridge. However, if a constant counterweight is used the
drawbridge will accelerate and crash into the support tower with the subsequent difficulty of
lowering the drawbridge against an unbalanced system (Fraser, 1985). This problem has been
solved by various mechanisms that ensure the variation in the lifting force is matched with a
variation in counterweight force. Early attempts consisted of seesaws, complex lever
arrangements, rollers and draw pits.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 10

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 16: Typical medieval castle drawbridge operated by a compact pulley and chain attached
to the entrance wall (Source: Unknown)
This led to the eventual introduction and evolution of counterbalanced systems to provide the
required mechanical advantage. The overhead balanced seesaw arrangement, known as the
Dutch method, was developed during the early years of the Industrial Revolution and has been
successful and remains a viable modern day design (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Dutch draw bridge (Source of Drawing: Hovey, 1926) and modern Dutch bascule
bridge at Yarmouth, England (Source: Unknown)
Balance is the key feature of any bascule bridge design with engineers and mathematicians
having devised and analysed many mechanisms, particularly in the USA through the late 1800s
and early 1900s where patents abounded.
An ingenious alternative system was devised by Bernard Forest de Bélidor c irca 1729 by
replacing the conventional drawbridge arrangement with a counterweight that rolled down a rear
curved track. This was originally used exclusively for military fortresses. The Fortress of
Bonifacio in Corsica is cited as the earliest known example of this style (Hovey, 1926).
Credit for the first analysis of this system was attributed to the French mathematician Guillaume
de l’Hopital, in correspondence with the Swiss mathematician Johann I Bernoulli during the late
16th century which contained the curve equations. It was published in Latin by Bernoulli in 1695,
who recognised the equation as that of a cardioid (heart-shaped, Figure 18) (Barpi & Deakin,
2012). Belidor had suggested a sine curve.
The Bélidor bascule bridge design (or cardioid curve) operates by the principle that the rolling
counterweight provides maximum lifting force when it is vertical and at its peak (maximum
height). From here the counterweight rolls down the curve where the curved track radii
increases so that the vertical load of the of the counterweight decreases to keep in balance with
the rising centroid of the bascule span. This design was popularised in French publications
(Figure 18) and there are a considerable number of bridges with this design built in the 1700s
including the Königstein fortress in Germany, the Exilles in Italy and the Esseillon and the Fort
l’Écluse in France.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 11

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 18: The cardioid orientation where the track occupies only the broad red line section
(Source: Barpi & Deakin, 2012) and sketch (Source: La Science de Ingenieurs, 1754)
The next evolutionary development in the design of bascule bridges were the trunnion bascules.
These were distinct from previous bascule designs with the introduction of a heavy
counterweight mounted on a frame at the fixed end of the span. The bridge rotates around a
fixed pivot point and as the span is raised the counterweight swings down (Waddell, 1916). The
earliest recorded trunnion type bascule bridge was built at Selby, England in 1839 and was
noted to provide practical service as a rail bridge (Price, 1879).

North American influences

In comparison to the relatively slow development recorded in Europe, the intense competition in
the USA to have patents led to an explosion of subtypes of bascule bridges being developed
with extensive variations of mechanisms and geometry between the 1890s and 1920s.
The potential of the Bélidor bascule as an elegant and energy efficient movable bridge design
was described in an influential 1896 paper in the Railroad Gazette, by Assistant Chief Engineer
of the American Bridge Company, Otis E. Hovey (1926). Hovey’s comprehension and
knowledge of the Bélidor bascule was pivotal in the successful adaption of the design to road
and rail bridges. He designed a number of these bridges in USA displaying their practical
advantage. Two examples of Hovey’s designs built in 1896 include the Bridge across the West
Branch of the Chicago River (Figure 19) and the Berry’s Creek Bridge on the Erie Railroad.

Figure 19: Chicago River Bridge by Hovey (Source: Scientific America, 1896)
The US rolling lift bascules had two important forerunners; these were the 40 ft. track girder built
at Le Havre, France, before 1824 and another rotating on a wheel built at Bregere and
documented by Waddell (1916). By contrast the rolling lift bascules are distinctly different in
operation as the movable span rolls backward on curved extensions of the bridge girders. As it
does this, the leaf rises and the counterweight drops. The fixed counterweight makes this very
economical to operate.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 12

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

The Scherzer bascule was first developed in 1893 by William Scherzer of the Metropolitan West
Side Elevated Railroad Company of Chicago. The bridge design was patented and vigorously
advocated and widely used in the USA and in other countries. The type was popular on account
of its simplicity and the small power required for operation (Hovey, 1926). No examples of this
type were built in NSW.
The Rall bascule bridge is an interesting variant of the rolling bascule type. The design appears
to have arisen in part as a way around the patents held by the Scherzer Bridge Company. The
design was developed and patented by Mr. Theodore Rall and was controlled by the Strobel
Steel Construction Company of Chicago. The Rall patent involves large moving rollers and is
considered suitable for a double deck bridge (Grafton Bridge, Figure 25). The most significant
bridge built to this specification was the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River in
Portland, Oregon opened in 1913 (Figure 20).

Figure 20: One of the Rall wheels on Broadway Bridge (Source: Tilly)
Following the Scherzer design, Joseph Strauss developed another variant bascule bridge in
1905. This design was patented by the Strauss Bridge Company of Chicago. There have been
more bascule bridges built from the Strauss designs than any other single type of bascule. This
series comprises designs of three general “Strauss Types”:
 Type 1: Vertical overhead counterweight (Narooma and Menindee Bridge, Figure 24)
 Type 2: Underneath counterweight (no examples built in NSW)
 Type 3: Heel-trunnion (first Spit Bridge, Figure 21).

Figure 21: First Spit Bridge (Source: MSBSR 579, RMS photographic archives)

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 13

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

NSW Bascule Bridges First Generation: Drawbridges

In NSW the earliest bascule bridges were built in the 1890s to designs by J. A. McDonald
(Fraser, 1985). These designs consisted of an entirely timber structure encompassing a latti ce
tower, longitudinally oriented sheaves and counterweights hung inside the tower cavity. The
span was raised at one end by a cable which passed over the sheaves and onto the
counterweights. Tower stability was provided by tie rods from the top of the tower restraining it
to the side spans (Figure 22). Allan (1924) noted that the stiffness of the towers was not
adequate to prevent excessive deflection during operation however the design still met the
operational requirements. This type of bridge was built at four locations (see Table 1) and is
known collectively as the “Drawbridge Type”.

Figure 22: Drawbridge Type: First generation bascule bridge, essentially a drawbridge (Source
Dare, 1896) and Shea’s Creek Bridge (Source: Don Fraser collection, RMS archives)
An interesting feature of these first generation designs was the method adopted for retaining a
balance of the lift span during operation. J. A. McDonald used a set of metal disc weights of
decreasing diameters to balance the opening span as it rose. The discs were picked off by
matching lugs inside the tower; hence the amount of active counterweights was balanced
against the position of the opening span.
NSW Bascule Bridge Second Generation: Bélidor Type
The early drawbridge designs were most likely informed by British engineering technology
(Fraser, 1985). The Bridge over the Wilson River named Telegraph Point was designed by
Harvey Dare in 1902 and he noted that the bridge was designed on a principle applied in
several structures in the United States (Dare, 1904).
The inherent complexity of a bascule bridge is how the mechanical advantage, centre of gravity
and load continually varies during operation. As the lift span is raised the weight of the span and
centre of gravity is shifted towards the pivot and consequently less force is required from the
lifting mechanism as the bridge rises.
Further bascule bridge developments continued in the USA, taking the European designs as a
basis. Bridge engineers in the USA continued to innovate in two distinct basic patterns; the
trunnion and the rolling lift types. The trunnion type was an evolution of the Selby Bridge
described above, with the key feature of a fixed pivot point.
The solution adopted by Dare was the Bélidor curved balance counterweight track. Where the
counterweight rolls down the track and the vertical component of force diminishes as the track
levels out. These changes in force are matched to ensure that there is minimal weight
differential during the entire lifting operation which is achieved by increasing the diameter of the
curve track as the rolling counter weight approaches the base. Dare was already using the
graphical method from America to set out the cardioid to scale (Figure 18). He changed to a
practical piece of curve-fitting using sections of circular curves to closely match the
progressively changing radii of the true cardioid. Metal fabricators wer e quite familiar with
shaping metal sections to fit circular curves.
The Telegraph Point Bridge was of timber construction with a curved track incorporated into the
adjacent fixed span. The counterweight travelled along the track during operation and as noted
previously this results in a varying counterweight force that retains the balance in the system
(Figure 23). The Swansea Channel was also bridged by a similar design in 1909 which
remained in service for 46 years.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 14

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 23: Bélidor Type: Telegraph Point Bridge track curve (Source: Dare, 1904)
The Telegraph Point Bridge bascule span was relatively short and therefore the use of a timber
tower was adequate. The later Bélidor type bridges designed by Dare needed to span greater
distances and hence metal was required (Dare, 1904). Coraki Bridge was the first of this type
and was completed in 1905. However, it was designed on the same principle, the scale was
increased with the tower and adjacent truss subsequently reinforced with additional diagonals.
Five other bridges of this type were completed including the Darling Point Bridge built in 1905,
McFarlane Bridge over the South Arm of the Clarence River built in 1906, Kyalite Bridge over
the Wakool River built in 1912, Carrathool Bridge over the Murrumbidgee River built in 1922 and
Shea’s Creek rail bridge built in 1925 (Figure 24). These bridges collectively form the “Bélidor
Type” bascule bridges.

Figure 24: Shea’s Creek Railway Bridge, Alexandria replaced 1985 (Source: SRA archives)

NSW Bascule Bridges Third Generation: Modern Bascules

The third generation bascule bridge designs are primarily categorised as those derived from US
designs patented and operational between the period between 1896 and 1913. These are
distinct through sophistication of their mechanical systems and relatively large size.
In 1924 the first Spit Bridge over Middle Harbour was completed and the design adopted was a
double-leaf “Strauss Type 3” heel-trunnion bascule (Figure 21). This design positions the
trunnion at the top of the tower where the driving force rotates the counterweight and lever arm
which raises the span.
The bridge over the Darling River at Menindee (Figure 25) was the first vertical overhead
counterweight “Strauss Type 1” bridge built in NSW. The Bridge was completed in 1927 and the
design consists of a counterweight supported laterally by a rear tower. The driving force of the
bridge is provided by a rack and pinion mounted at the rear of the span. This design was also
adopted for the bridge over the Wagonga Inlet at Narooma built in 1931, the bridge over the
Lansdowne River at Coopernook built in 1934 and Barneys Point Bridge built in 1936. These
bridges, along with the first Spit Bridge, collectively form the “Strauss Type” bascule bridges.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 15

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 25: Strauss Type: Menindee Bridge 1927 (Source: RMS)

The Grafton Bridge completed in 1932 was a unique design for Australia. It is based on the Rall
type bascule bridge (Figure 26). Key features include the mechanism which rotates and
traverses horizontally on a large roller (rall) during operation and the truss bascule span. The
bridge has a double deck and is designed to provide passage for both road and rail traffic. This
bridge is the sole entry in the “Rall Type” bascule bridge category.

Figure 26: Rall Type: Grafton Bridge 1932 (Source: RMS)

In 1955 the Bélidor type bascule bridge over the Swansea Channel was replaced with a
trunnion type design shown in Figure 27. This type of bridge is electro-mechanically driven, with
electric motors operating a rack and pinion mounted on the rear quadrant of the span. The 1958
Spit Bridge was also designed on a similar principle. These two bridges collectively form the
“Simple Trunnion Type” bascule bridges.

Figure 27: Simple Trunnion Type: Twin Swansea Bridges (Source: RMS)

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 16

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

The second Swansea Bridge built in 1989 is similar in many respects to the adjacent 1955
design however there is a progression in the operating mechanism. The driving force is
provided by hydraulic luffing cylinders that are mounted near the trunnion of the spans. This
type of movable bridge is considered as a hydraulically actuated trunnion bascule and the
design was published in a USA patent by G. Mooney and E. Driver from 1967.
The application of hydraulics to a bascule bridge was also adopted in the design of the second
Spit Bridge and the Broadwater Bridge over the Richmond River. Broadwater Bridge bascule
span was built through the relocation and reuse of the Barneys Point Bridge and the
circumstances leading to the adoption of a hydraulic driving system by Richmond Valley Council
is not clear. The bridge consists of a steel web plate girder and the span pivots on a reinforced
concrete pier that is founded on concrete piles. The pier construction and bridge relocation was
completed in 2005.

CONCLUSION
The Movable Span Bridge Study was completed by GHD in conjunction with RMS. The study
will play a vital role in assisting RMS in assessing and managing their heritage movable span
bridges into the future.
The new classification provides a better understanding of the performance and shortcomings of
those movable span bridges that are still operational as these issues appear common to all
bridges within a type. One significant benefit of this classification is that it should enable the
standardisation of maintenance strategies across each type and the development of more
consistent heritage and conservation management practices.

REFERENCES

1. J. A. L. Waddell (1916) Bridge Engineering Volume I, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. London: Chapman &
Hall, Limited.

2. H. Harvey Dare (1896), The Opening Bridges of New South Wales, Sydney University Engineering
th
Society, 25 November, 1896.

3. Otis Ellis Hovey (1926), Movable Bridges (V.1). New York: J. Wiley sons, inc.; London: Chapman
Hall, Limited.

4. D. J. Fraser (1985). Movable Span Bridges in New South Wales Prior to 1915, Multi-disciplinary
Engineering Transactions.

5. Barpi, F. and Deakin, M., A., B. (2012) The Bélidor Bascule Bridge Design. International Journal for
the History of Engineering & Technology, Vol. 82 No. 2, July, 2012, 159-75.

6. Bélidor, M. (1754) La Science des Ingénieurs.

7. Price, J. (1879) Movable Bridges. Institute of Civil Engineers Min. Proc. Vol. LVII Part III, 1878.

8. Percy Allan (1924), Highway Bridge Construction – The practice in New South Wales: Movable
th
Bridges. Industrial Australian and Mining Standard, 11 September, 1924.

9. Tyrell, H. G. (1912). “The evolution of vertical lift bridges.” University of Toronto Engineering Society,
Toronto. (reprinted in Applied Physics 1912).

10. Hood, R. J. (1850). “Description of a vertical lift bridge, erected over the Grand Surrey Canal on the
line of the Thames Junction Branch of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.” Trans. Inst.
Civil Eng, IX, 303-309.

11. Griggs F. E. (2006), “Development of the Vertical Lift Bridge: Squire Whipple to J. A. L. Waddell,
1872-1917. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE September/October 2006.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 17

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Ian Berger joined the RTA in 2002 and works as a Heritage Officer in Environment Branch. By
trade an archaeologist, he provides support and advice to project teams and designers on the
upgrade and repair of heritage structures including bridges.

Mark Tilley is a Principal Bridge Engineer at GHD and a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers
Australia and an Engineers Australia accredited Heritage and Conservation Engineer. He
specialises in opening, heritage, timber, steel and concrete bridges including repairs,
rehabilitations, upgrades, inspections, asset management and brownfield rail and road bridge
replacements often during short shutdowns.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 18