sign in sign up
<<
Home , Hamelin, Pegnitz (river), Porta Westfalica (gorge), Rhume, Weser

Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction History, Madrid, 20th-24th January 2003, ed. S. Huerta, Madrid: I. Juan de Herrera, SEdHC, ETSAM, A. E. Benvenuto, COAM, F. Dragados, 2003.

A matter to be considered in various directions: Approaches in design, prefabrication and assembly of the Chain Bridge, 1836-38

Michael Mende

DEMANDS OF AN INCREASING TRAFFIC transport on the road from via and Gottingen to Cassel or destinations in made In Oecember 1817, only three years after Hanover approximately 6,000 tons ayear, while a little more had been restituted as kingdom within the German than 2,000 ton s annually were crossing the at Confederation created as a result of the Vienna Hamelin to get their destinations in or eastern Congress, Victor Leberecht Prott (1781-1857) as an (von Reden 1839,2: 301 and 321). In the engineer lieutenant colonel the technical chief of the long term Hanoverian efforts in road construction General Board of Roads presented his general road would shift the link between the seaports of construction plan (Hindelang an Walther 1989, 14). Hamburg or and trading centers like His proposal was to improve the communication in Frankfurt on the Main or from its that kingdom by laying out a net finally comprising traditional route via Brunswick more to the west about 3000 km of main roads and more than 2000 km focusing the capital and the valley (Scholl of secondary or connecting roads. At this moment 1978, 46). Following a policy of pushing long only 920 km of these roads being composed of a distance transit routes Hanover tried to keep the bottoming between kerbstones and paved with sand, goods transport as long as possible within the borders gravel, or limestone were opened to traffic. of her territory. Hoping for raising benefits from a In the former road transit trade dragged out in such a way, the kingdom construction had started during the 1760s just after was going to convert roads into a new kind of staples the Seven Years' War. Between 1764 and the early (Rauers 1913,29 and 42). 1780s three main lines were going to be completed Before the Hanoverian exchequer, however, would under supervision of the Royal Electoral General be able to meet those expectations, heavy investments Intendance of Road Construction established by a were to be made not at least into bridge building. As grant of George III. The reason for taking up the each of the three 18th century roads merely had to roadworks was of both military and commercial cross brooks or creeks, for the time only small stone concern (Baldermann 1968, 75). Whereas the roads arch bridge s would have become necessary. For running from the capital to the fortified cities of passing rivers like the at Northeim, the Hamelin and watching the river Weser at Munden, or the Weser at Nienburg and Hamelin were more of military importance, the road passing furthermore existent bridges could be used, but which on its run south to Cassel the Hanoverian towns of in 1817 each still had remained in the property of Einbeck, Northeim, Gottingen, and Munden, would those municipalities. Albeit they were raising tolls, be more of commercial interest. About 1830 goods the bridges, however, lacked constant maintenance 1418 Michae1 Mende

and therefore appeared in more or less a rather bad Hessian exclave of 5chaumburg, and at in condition. Largely of medieval origin almost every of Prussian Westphalia, while the bridge at Hoxter these stone arch bridges by that time even had upstreams in the same province since 1673 had kept undergone considerable decay. Damages caused by ruined (Grunsky 1998, 108). heavy ice motion, flood, or military action during the Napoleonic wars had added to. In particular most bridge s had lost at least one of their vaults and ADOPTlNG A NEW TVPE OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTlON sometimes also one or, Jike that at Hamelin, even two of the piers. Because the municipal budgets could not According to the agreements made among these atford more, strut frames had to compensate for. states by the Weser Navigation Act non e of these Albeit better than a ferry such structures, as chosen bridges should present an obstacle to shipping traffic. for the bridge s at Northeim, Nienburg, and HameJin, Albeit first attempts to sail by steam boat had been as well as at Minden, the Prussian fortress watching made in 1816, both passenger traffic and goods the river Weser downstreams , were transport on barges towed by a paddle wheel tug nothing more than rather a stop gap solution. If one of sustainedly would become successful only since the them fully would have to be replaced by a new late 1830s. Within a few years, however, Hamelin structure, first the state had to take command. In the then would become the dominating location for steam case of Hanover this meant that the General Board of navigation upstream of Bremen. Compared with the Roads then would become responsible for the entire barges of the trains until the mid 19th century project, the design as well as construction and further generally used for goods transport, the paddle wheel maintenance or frequent repair. passenger boats and tugs would be much broader. 500n after the French occupation troops had Considering the design of a new bridge that meant withdrawn from Northwest the bridge at above all to diminish the number of its piers and so to Hamelin anew would have to undergo at least widen its openings, both by the way also a precaution sweeping repair, a measure which had become against damages by heavy flooding or ice motion. At unevitable as Hanover by the agreements of the Hamelin this aspect was of particular importance Vienna Congress was obliged to take care of the because both the holm deviding the river Weser into improvements necessary to enable both an two arms and the falls at their entrance. Controlled by unrestrained navigation on the river Weser and an weirs across both arms these falls were powering open communication for troop movements between miJIs located as well on the holm as at the townside Prussia's central and westem provinces. Whereas the wharf, whereas locks installed 1732-33 allowed that character of the Weser as an «international» river boats could pass without lightening. formally would get confirmed by the Weser The Hamelin bridge therefore not only was to take Navigation Act of 1823, the communication crossing over one of Germany's soon main through roads that river at HameJin would become one of the running from east to west, but also to give eighteen most important routes mentioned by Prott in furthermore free access to the holm with its milis and his 1817 proposa!. locks. Designing a new structure of this bridge had to At this moment seven of the German states of quite consider that the number of waggons, carts, or a different size and political impact were carriages passing it presumabely would increase and neighbouring the river Weser: besides Hanover al so beyond that their load could increase, too. Whereas in -Cassel, Prussia, Brunswick, Lippe and 1822 the performance of a horse was estimated at 0.5 5chaumburg-Lippe, finally Bremen and . to 0.8 tons, in !830 it would have been 1.2 or even lA Then bridges were crossing the river only at six tons, so that a waggon pulled by four horses on a points, most of them located in Hanover. Apart from stone paved road, of which Hanover at this moment Hamelin and Nienburg there existed also bridges possessed totally a Jittle les s than 450 km, might have downstreams at Hoya and upstreams at Munden over been 10aded with up to six tons of goods (von Reden the river Werra, just before it is joining the river 1838,2: 345 and 380). and both shape the Weser. Each a single bridge At the beginning of the 19th century the Hamelin was crossing the river at Bremen, at in the bridge was a timbered super structure on stone piers. A matter to be considered in various directions 1419

Its western part comprised five trusses and four river 50; NHStA Hann 109, 1028 and 13b/Hameln 6pg). piers, the eastern part connecting the city with the Apparently the renewed structure merely a couple mili and lock holm besides each two trusses and piers of years later again would need radical repair. By also a double t1ap bridge with the lifting gate on a their report of April 1824 Anton Heinrich and timbered pier in between both its decks. As in the Richard Dammert, both sons of the Lock course of the Napoleonic Wars each part of the bridge Commissioner and as engineering officers working had lost one of its piers and two of its trusses, both the with Prott and the General Board of Roads, therefore municipality and the General Board of Hydraulic argued for a cast iron bridge (NHStA 109, 1028 and Engineering soon after the armistice was urged to 13b/Hameln 8pg.). Their project was inspired by consider repair and beyond that improvements, too. Thomas Wilson's bridge of 1796 over the river Wear In a way following out the proposals made in January at Sunderland. This cast iron bridge basing on 1818 by Lock Commissioner Anton Heinrich Thomas Paine's design and consisting of six ribs, Dammert (ea. 1755~1828), the remains of the each made up of 105 iron blocks casted again at the destroyed piers as well as the flap bridge were foundry of the Walker brothers at Rotherham abandoned and longer, but still timbered trusses took (DeLony 2000, 43), was by its single-span of 72m at the place so that on each side a passage of about 33m that time not at least for German eyes a still could have been received (Hausmann and Plath 1973, spectacular feature.

"

'k}'"

Figure 1 August Heinrich Dammert and Richard A. Dammert, two alternatives ofthe proposed cast iron bridge, plake VII ofthe report No 2, 1829 (NHStA 13b/Hameln 8pg)

'//."" "1

,I.;¡-~F'-¡I ~,...,.~~-,--""~ ""'J.¡./ ,- ~ ;'-b. "-'T'-,,--,"'''' ~Yh...-- '" ' Figure 1b August Heinrich Dammert and Richard A. Dammert, project of a cast iron bridge to be erected across the river Weser at Hamelin, 1829 (NHStA 13b/Hameln 9pm) 1420 Michael Mende

Being not very sure about the reaction on their therefore a continuous f10w of tolls cou1d be proposal from the beginning they presented two expected. Because the bridge would «suspended alternative designs, either on each side two or even above the riveD> it certainly could be assumed that it merely one segmental arch. Certainly the latter never might be damaged by even the worst t100d solution promised more advantages, but would be desaster or ice motion. Prott supposed besides that an harder to achieve by the means contemporarily absence of river piers wou]d improve t100d protection available with the domestic ironworks of the or also of the city itself (NHStA Hann ]09.1 028 [] 829], at Us]ar in the SoJling near the Weser about 80 km 1 and 3). upstream the construction site. Compared to timber Concerning the question, if at HameJin a «wire cast iron was though the more resistant material bridge» or a chain bridge would to be preferred, which allowed longer span and beyond that a ]ess taking the bridges «recent]y built across the river arched superstructure. This again also meant that the Rhone near Serrieres and Tournoil» as an example, ramps could get a minor gradient whereas the pitch Prott plead at the moment for the former. To achieve could remain rather low. Additional arguments a safe load of 42 ton s he estimated its material offered in favour of cast iron bridges were requirements at mere]y 18.6 tons of iron wire less underJining that they would be rather Jight and cheap than 4mm in di ame ter, 12.5 tons of wrought iron, and structures needing only quite a short time for both 3.1 ton s of cast iron which in his view altogether prefabrication and erection. If an iron bridge would cou1d be supplied by the state-owned ironworks of the not serve its purpose anymore, its components domestic Harz. By a Jetter sent in late September moreover either could be reused elsewhere or might 1829 to the General Board of Hydraulic Engineering fuUy be recycled in a foundry as scrap for new Prott again urged the necessity for an immediate castings (LBA 1594.3 [1828], 9v- I Ir). handing over of the bridge from the municipality to In spite of aU these merits the project of a cast iron the state and then start on doing the preparational bridge never wou]d be executed. It was destined to work (NHStA Hann 109.1028). fail in the same way as the related project of a 28m A1though Prott' s letter actually had been of crucia1 spanning cast iron bridge over the river at impact in launching the project it would take, (LBA 1594.3 [1824], 2v-3r). A]beit the however, some six years of an intense debate in many idea to erect such a bridge in this commercia1 town authorities were presenting their opinion or passed by the road from Brunswick to HameJin stiJ] respectively their opposing views. By a memorandum was pursued for several years by the royal of February 1830 the General Board of HydrauJic Hanoverian administration of the ironworks at Works would lead off. To promote again the Rothehutte in the eastern part of the Harz because its proposals by the Dammert brothers the board positive effects on employment, meanwhile Prott, reminded that there would have been meanwhile however, had put his mind to bui]d a suspension good experiences with many cast iron bridges in bridge across the river Weser instead. In his report England, France, and other countries, whereas there handed over to the General Board of Roads in August still wou1d be a lack of such a certainty regarding 1829 he pointed out that unJike the cast iron bridge as suspension bridges. Albeit the board recommended designed by the Dammert brothers a suspension the book published in 1824 by Henri Dufour on his bridge would not need any river pier and in the case iron wire suspension bridge at Geneva as a basis for of a miJitary conflict a couple of carpenters easily further assessment, however, the memorandum was could prevent a crossing of the river by dismanteJing emphasizing that there stiJl would have been almost within a few hours slow]y the bridge deck (NHStA nothing known about the impact changes in Hann 109.1028 [1829], §§ 3,4, an 6). temperature, particular1y frost, shocks, or Jightnings, Looking to the exchequer Prott underJined the could made. Beyond that there a]so could not be rather low budget a suspension bridge would require. discerned any component able to compensate even As its construction materia]s primari]y wou]d be iron only one of the cables in the case of its rupture. Thus and stone such a bridge promised «a durability of the board finally feJt constrained to warn against the centuries». Mere1y the wooden bridge deck wou]d «great danger» a suspension bridge generaJly might need constant but not very expensive repair and imply. This fear also was supported by the impression A matter lo be considered in various directions 1421 that this type simply was too much a novelty and its 1820s, he conducted experiments on domestic iron special demands of elasticity would not to be met by wire, bar iron, and wrought iron chains as malerials domestic iron reputed more for its temper if not its useful to suspension bridge s (Ferjeneik and Hruban brittleness (NHStA Hann 109.1028 [1830]). 1992, 543). As chairman of the Bohemian Society of In contrast count Munster heading Ihe Hanoverian Sciences in \825 he gave a special lecture on his government some month later, in November 1830, experiences, ilJustration it with the model of a chain joined the expertise made by Georg Ludwig Friedrich bridge. As a conc1usion he thus would rank Laves (1788-1864) who in his function as the director «suspension or chain bridges among the more of the Board of Surveyors had pointed out that a important subjects of recent mechanics and suspension bridge would bring about economic architecture» and meanwhile «the gJory in having benefits because of timber savings as well as of more realized the largesl and most perfect structures of this employment in domestic mining and local crafts. kind belongs to the Englishmen» (Gerstner 1831, 2: Beyond that, Laves had continued his statement, it 449). also would match very well with the beauty of the Weser valley (NHStA Hann 109.1028 [1830]). Unti1 June 1833, however, it remained still unsett1ed if DEVELOPING A BRIDGE DESIGN BY ADAPTATION either wire cables or chains, either flat or round rods, should be applied. When George Wendelstadt When Prott had to defend his project for a last time in (J 790-1860) who, already prior to 1820 working with September 1836 he could derive an advantage from the General Board of Roads as an engineer and in quoting the British experience as being confirmed by 1826-30 being responsible for the design and Gerstner. He had to refute the objections previously erection of the remarkable viaducts near Einbeck, raised by the government building surveyors Northeim, and Munden (Schwartz 1989,53), in 1832 Hagemann and Mosengel that a chain bridge might was put in charge of the Hamelin project, he at first not really be appropriate. In this regard they had to deal again with the old timber truss bridge particularly had referred to the collapsed Pont des there. By his report submitted in September that year lnvalides over the Seine in Paris. It was designed by he only could state an advanced stage of dilapidation. Henri N avier (1785-1836) who by his «Rapport et Whereas Prott in his quotation presented three Mémoires sur les ponts suspendus» published already weeks later still was speaking about a «wire cable in 1823 had described a fundamental theory on the bridge», he would have changed his mind during the design and caJcu1ation of suspension bridges. Albeit following spring. By his memorandum made in early thus the doubts were to be taken seriously, Prott June 1833 he eventually appeared being convinced putting the rhetorical question «what at the end all that at Hamelin a «chain bridge» would be the best these collapsed bridges» would prove, however, solution. Wendelstadt on the other hand would confidently answered that it would prove nothing explain it by his final report of November 1933 more than the examples of all the stone arch bridges referring to foreign models in meantime proved being collapsed already before (NHStA Hann 109. successful (NHStA 109.1028). Prott who in 1834 was 1029, 30). Referring to British leadership he pointed mentioned as a subscriber of Franz Joseph Gerstner' s out that neither the chain bridge s on the Holyhead handbook of mechanics (Gerstner 1834, 3: end papers Road across the Menai strait and at Conway designed w/o p.) in its first volume also dealing in detail with by Thomas Telford (1757-1834) nor the chain bridge suspension bridges (Gerstner 1831, 1: 253 and 449), since 1827 crossing the Thames at Hammersmith in when he read it apparently got both the decisive nowadays London had done so (HNStA Hann 109. inspiration and all the information needed. 1029, 32 and 50). Gerstner (1756-1832), since 1789 professor for In particular this bridge designed by WilIiam mathematics at the university of Prague and in 1806 Tierney Clark and in 1824 examined by Telford, not there the founder and first director of the Politecnic only for Prott, but also for many of his contemporaries Institut, carried weight as an authority on both theory soon had become the most sophisticated «mode1 for a and practice oí' mechanics. Together with his son chain bridge» (Heinzerling 1868/69), 73). When Prott Anton (1793- 1840) as early as the beginning of the commissioned Wendelstadt in 1833 to draw up the 1422 Michae1 Mende

/,,,dl ~,.,~~~,~ '*'~c.-t'~ -" I-""'_.."".,,,,,,,,,,,--,~ f'~

Figure 2 George Wendelstadt, project of a suspension bridge across the Weser and the masonry for a new holm bulwark, designed in autumn 1833 (NHStA 13b/Hameln 3k) design for the Hamelin bridge it thus was suggested as Like Prott also Wendelstadt in this regard mainly the essentia] pattem to follow. Wende]stadt, however, had to rely on technicalliterature. ApparentIy both of was not allowed simp]y to copy the Hammersmith them never had visited one of the suspension bridges bridge just as he could not join impJicitIy Gerstner's since ]824 built at several p]aces in the German descriptions. On the contrary he had to adapt it to the Federation, neither the still existing footbridge by pecuJiarities of the site and the technica] potentia] Johann Georg Kupp]er over the river Pegnitz at being available at the domestic ironworks. Nuremberg following the partero of Samuel Brown's Wende]stadt thus was to detai] the structure of the Union Bridge at Berwick as in 1822 described by bridge and to fix the dimensions of every of its Robert Stevenson (Stevenson 1822, ] 16), nor the components as well as he was to make sure that the bridge at the Prussian ironworks of Malapane in forgers and foundrymen ofthe Hanoverian ironworks, Upper Si]esia in ] 827 constructed in a similar design, who never before were occupied with such an order, or the road bridge across the river at Bamberg really wou]d be able to prefabricate them in a proper in Bavarian Upper designed in ] 828 b Y precision and without any material fault. But not at Franz Joseph SchierJinger (Schepe ]987, ]63). least he had to close gaps in his own experience and Probab]y they a]so did not hear anything about the comprehension of some particularities in the projects drawn up by the Prussian district architect mechanics of suspension bridge structures. Hermann Eberhard who in ] 824 was commissioned by the government and had suggested to bui]d across the river Weser at Hoxter either a three span cable bridge following Navier's proposa]s or chain bridge as being described by Stevenson (Grunsky ]998, 109). Quite obviously the reason was that Eberhard's suggestions soon wou]d be rejected as it was the same with Peter Joseph Krahe's ]826/27 design of an asymmetric cable bridge to be erected over the river at Brunswick (Dorn 1997,51 and 318). They both would vanish for many decades into the respective fiJing cabinets. By their career, however, Prott and Wendelstadt actually had not been unprepared. Both they were familiar with mathematics as weIl as with mechanics Figure 2a and each of them disposed of his own experience in The Hamelin chain bridge as looked in direction to the west. civil engineering. Whi]e Prott, born at Hamelin as Son photograph, about 1880 (Hamelin Historica1 Museum) of an arti11ery officer, after ] 803 had worked in A matter to be considered in various directions 1423

England as a lieutenant with the engineering corps of different span, Wendelstadt paid special attention to the Kings' s German Legion on the layout of rollers being more resistant and softer running in their fortit1cations, Wendelstadt, who was born at Wetzlar bearing chairs on top of particularly the central pier as son of a physician, first had studied chemistry at than those at Menai or Hammersmith. To fix the Marburg in Hesse. In 1813 he joined the Hanoverian hangers at the eyes of the chain bars he preferred army as an officer within the engineering corps, then screws instead of bolts like for instance Clark did in 1815 was released from duty to take up studies in (NHStA Hann 109. 1029 [1836],152). scicnce at Gottingen, before he finally was going to Beyond finding the solutions for structural become virtually the head of every bridge building adaptations Wendelstadt, however, still remained project to be executed for the Hanoverian state dependent of the capabilities of the state ironworks at (Scholl 1978,49 and 64). Uslar. To clear the imponderables he had to make The main difference to the Hammersmith bridge templates for each of the various kinds of forgings Wendelstadt had to consider, was that the Hamelin requested in particular for the chains. As it even bridge needed three piers instead of only two. though still remained uncertain, if each of all these Whereas both piers of the Hammersmith bridge each components would achieve the same homogeneity, were standing in the river near the embankment, Wendelstadt first had to test about forty proofs on the Wendelstadt decided to place the central pier on the upper bulwark of the mili and lock holm and to integrate both the lateral piers just into the straight line ~~/-uHM <~_.7'~-~ of the embankment (NHStA 13b Hameln 3k [1833]). ..-d~~ As the deck of the Hamelin bridge, its crossbeams as well as its planked surface entirely should be of timber, the whole structure would be specifically lighter than its English counterpart. Therefore the chains as well as the pairs of their cast iron bearing chairs, each of them to be mounted on one of the piers, also were to be more slightly dimensioned. Considering their stitch Wendelstadt had studied besides the Hammersmith bridge also those of Paris, Bamberg, and the Menai Strait. Whereas the weight of the chains at Menai made 1300 and at Hammersmith 1050 tons, at Hamelin, however, it would not exceed 378 tons. Here al so the chain stress was adjusted of merely a quarter of that to be met at Menai or Hammersmith. The safety factor, on the other hand, was equalized to that of the Menai bridge, in both cases raising by 25% above that of the Hammersmith bridge (NHStA Hann 109. 1029 [1836], 139). For the stitch of the Hamelin bridge itself Wendelstadt in a way was compromising between Navier on one and Telford or Clark on the other side. He took a relation of 1 : 12 for the stitch and chord length of the catenary, whereas that was about l : 9 in Paris, l : 13 at Menai, or even 1 : 15.5 Figure 3 in London (NHStA Hann 109. 1029 [1836], 127). A George Wendelstadt. view of a chain roller bearing chair and crucial point to be minded by Wendelstadt was that the chain position. a) in the central pier. b) in a bank pier; the chains were to cover al! three piers without right part of a draft presenting the cross and longitudinal interruption between their anchorings on both sides of sections of the Hamelin suspension bridge piers. autumn the bridge. As it also would have openings of 1833 (NHStA 13b/Hameln 4pg) 1424 Michael Mende tensile testing machine at Carl Anton Henschel' s George Luttich, who after having finished his studies engineering workshop in Cassel (LBA 1594. 4 in technology, chemistry, and construction [1836], 7v and 21 v) before it could be decided, if each engineering at the Superior Schoo] 01' Industry at chain was to comprise «8 and 9, or 9 and 10 llat bars» Hanover already had worked as W endelstadt' s as Prott had noted in a 1etter to Wendelstadt (NHStA resident engineer, suggested that cross beams of Hann 109.1046 [1836]). riveted wrought iron plate now should replace those Regarding the bearing chairs Wendelstadt had 01' timber. The surface of the deck, however, as welI oriented on the elasticity modulus according to as the longitudina!!y strutting parapet would be Thomas Tredgold, regarding the fiat bars for the renewed in timber again (NHStA Hann 109.1029 chains on that according to Telford (LBA 1594. 4, 22r [1851]). and 23v). For the forgers at Uslar ironworks, the The Hamelin chain bridge remained on its site untíl Sollingerhutte, it was, however, hard to meet these 1895 when it was to be dismant]ed, because the deck measures because every component there had to be and its passage through both triumphal arch piers had prefabricated on a water-powered be!!y or tail helve. become too narrow related to the meanwhile The materia] was wrought iron refined by traditional increasing traffic. Its center pier on the holm between Harz methods on from an alIoy of charcoa] pig iron both arms 01' the river, also stood too close to the originatíng from two different kinds of ores. Refining directly neighbouring fiourmilL This mi]] had be en was made in two steps, first forging crude bars which en]arged and needed more space at its loading then were to be bundled and welded together. Here platform as we]] as a more convenient ramp to the the main problem was to prevent welding splits. bridge. Al'ter a new eab]e-stayed steel bridge was In total both refining forges 01' the So!!ingerhutte opened to traffie, Wendelstadt's chain bridge was had to supply 2204 fiat bars 01'seven different shapes transferred to , asma!! country and sizes altogether summing up to 1235 tons 01' town about 20 km downstream where it remained wrought iron. The eyes 01' the fiat bars were to be until it was blown up at the end 01'Word War Il. drilIed out. If the bars should be brought into a curved With the completion 01' the chain bridge in 1839, shape this had to be done by forging but not simply Prott, as its initiator, had been appointed an honorary bending them and if the tolerance of about ] .2mm citizen of HameJin, and the bridge itself shortly carne would have been mis sed the respective part had to be to be seen as the «largest and finest bridge in touched up by filing it (LBA 1594,4, II v). To protect Germany» (Deurer et al. 1841, I 1). A]beit no speeial the iron parts against corrosion they were covered publication on it appears to have be en published, the with charcoal tar. Besides the fiat bars 250 hanger bridge soon became widely known outside rods, about 200 bolts of three different types, and Hanoverian circles. Only weeks after the HameJin various other wrought iron components had to be bridge was opened to traffic, Wendelstadt was invited supplied to the constructíon site where the ]ast parts to deJiver a design, together with a cost 01' estímate, would arrive on]y in December 1838, mainly on for a chain bridge across the river Neckar by the city barges. Just the prefabrication 01' the chains was to counci] 01'Mannheim in Baden. take the Sollingerhutte 21 weeks (LBA 1594, 4, 88r The debate which subsequently arose at Mannheim and 162v). and ]asted about two years was in many respects similar to the earlier debate within the Hanoverian bureaucracy. In 1824 Wi]]iam von Traitteur QUITE A PRACTICAL SUCCESS BUT RATHER MINOR (1788-1859), who then was working as an engineer PERCEPTION and «innovator 01' Russian architecture» in Saint Petersburg (Fedorov 2000), where he made the design After the chains were mounted untíl March 1839, the for a couple of chain bridges aeross the , had Hamelin chain bridge finalIy could be opened to already proposed a ehain bridge based on Telford's traffic in late August that year (NHStA Hann 109. model at Menai Strait. His suggestion was rejected as 1047). A first sweeping repair would be necessary not it was, in 1835, the project for a stone arched bridge before 1851, but then only was to concem the timber (Deurer et al. ]841, 5). As a result of the debate, components of the deck, in particular the cross beams. around 1840 a final decision had to be made between A matter to be considered in various directions 1425 the offer of a French company to erect a cable REFERENCE LIST suspension bridge similar to those constructed earlier LBA [Niedersachsisches Landesbergamt, Archiv, Claustha1- in France and Switzerland, in particular like the one Ze11erfeld] . by Chaley across the river Saane at Fribourg, and the Fach 1594,3, Anfertigung einer gegossenen eisernen Brücke suggestion for a chain bridge by Wendelstadt whom üher die /nnerste in Hildesheim /828-Rothehütte at the end the majority of the city council decided to Administration. appoint. He became head of a team with Luttich again Fach 1594,4, Acta hetr. Die Anfertigung und Ahgahe des as resident engineer, and the Hanoverian railway henothigten Eisens zum Bau einer Kettenhrücke üher die engineer Adolph Funk (1819-89), who just had Weser hei Hameln 1836-/839-So11ingerhütte. returned from England where he had met the HNStA [Niedersachsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hanoverj. Stevensons, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and others, Hann 109. 1028, Betr. Den Bau einer Kettenhrücke üher die and who afterwards would become head of the Weser hei Hameln, Vol. 1, 1829-1835. Hann 109.1029, Der Bau einer Kettenhrücke üher die Weser Hanoverian corps of railway engineers (Luttich 1858; hei Hameln, Vol 2, 1836-185/. Scho1l1978, 95, 107, 186, and 200). Hann 109.1046, Die Eisenlieferung für den Hamelnschen Wendelstadt in 1834 was to change his position as a Brückenhau 1836-1842. military engineer when the General Board of Roads Baldermann, Vdo. 1968. Die Entwicklung des Strassennetzes became a civil body and in would retire as road in Niedersachsen 1'0/11768-1960. Hildesheim. construction councilor at in 1856. Since Hanover DeLony, Eric. 2000. Tom Paine's Bridge. The man who was going to build her railway net, road construction wrote Common Sense was just as much of a revolutionary became of secondary importance. Mayor bridges, too, in the field of engineering. /nvention & Technology. 15: solely would be to design and to construct as railway 38-45. New York: Historical Society. bridges. In most cases, however, these bridges either Deurer, Heintze, and Reinhardt. 1841. Bericht üher den Bau were not as spectacular as it was the Hamelin chain einer festen Neckar-Brücke in Mannheim. Mannheim. Dom, Reinhard. 1997. Peter loseph Krahe. Band 111.Bauten bridge during the 1840s, or they were, in particular und Projekte im Konigreich Westfalen und im Herzogtum after 1866, built on the base of standard designo Their 1808-1837. Munich and Berlin. number raised and it became usual that their Fedorov, Sergej G. 2000. Wilhem von Traitteur. Ein construction was executed by specialized fiffi1s like hadischer Baumeister als Neuerer in der russischen Louis Eilers established in 187\ at Hanover. As the Architektur /8/4-/832. Berlin. Hanoverian State Railways were taken over by Ferjeneik, P. and J. Hruban. 1992. Über Leben und Arbeit Prussian authorities in 1866, when the kingdom was von Bend0ich Schnirch. Bauingenieur. Vol 67: 543-554. annexed as a province, the more prominent bridges like Gerstner, Frank Joseph von. 1831-1834. Halldhuch der that on the line between Luneburg and Schwerin Mechanik, aufgesetzt mit Beitrdgen von neuern crossing the river near Domitz were to be englisehen Konstrukzionen vermehrt und herausgegehen von Franz Anton Ritter von Gerstner. 3 vol.s. Prague. designed by the Prussian engineer lohn William Grunsky, Eberhard. 1998. V on den Anfangen des Schwedler (1823-94) or his collaborators. All this Hangebrückenbaus in Westfalen. Westfalen. Hefte für made that Wendelstadt and his work very soon was Geschichte, Kunst und Volkskunde. 76: 100-159. overshadowed and at the end going to be neglected. On Hausmann, Manfred und Helmut Plath. 1973. Das the other hand, however, meanwhile considerable Skizzenhuch des Rohert Batty, Lieut. Colonel. changes also were to be stated. At least since the mid Romantische Reise dureh Norddeutschland im labre 19th century the heyday for wrought iron chain bridges 1825. Hanover. everywhere was over and only in some really Heinzerling, F. 1868/69. Historische Übersicht über die prominent cases bridge building would occupy an Anwendung des Eisens zu Brückenbauten und deren entire bureaucracy or touch a broader public by mainly Ergebnisse für die Wahl ihres Konstruktionssystems und Eisenmaterials. Allgemeine Bauzeitung. 33/34: 67-95. its aesthetics. Finally in this regard it should not be Hindelang, Sabine und Peter Walther. 1989. Von der neglected that the communities of engineering officers, Wegbauintendance zum Landesamt für Strassenbau architects, and noble officials inspired by the ideas of (1764-1989). In Es hegalln mit 12 000 Talern. late enlightenment, characterizing the period around Geschichte des Strassenhaus in Niedersachsen. Edited by 1800, by the alternation of the generations was going to Vereinigung der Strassenbau- und Verkehrsingenieure in fall apart around 1850 at the ¡atest. Niedersachsen (VSVI), 9-51. Hildesheim. 1426 Michael Mende

Llittich. Georg. 1858. Die Neckar-Kerrenhriieke ZLI Scholl. Lars U1rich. 1977. Georg Dietrich Wendclstadt und Mannheim in XVI ZeichnLlngen dcm Balllneisler Johann Carl Ludwig SÜhlke. die Erbauer del' derselben Herrn C. Wende/stadl :/1 SI/lde , in LangebrÜcke in Northeilll. NOrl/¡e/mer Heilllmb"irrer, 42: Dankbarkeil/lnd Hoc/wehl/lng gnl'idlllcl. Halllelin C'J, 77-114 and 134-13<). Rauers, Friedrich, 1913. Ce.le/¡ie/¡re des Brelller Sehol!. Lars Ulrich. 1<)78. Ingenieure in del' Binnenhande/s im 19. }a/¡r/nll/derlnlllnenr/ie/¡ /llIIer den Frij/¡indusrria!i.liemng. SlIIm/ic/¡e /lnd /lrimre Techniker alten Verke/¡rsformen und im Überg/lng. Brelllcn. illl Kiiuigreic/¡ H/lnu(l\'er und /In der Ru/¡r i 1815-1873). Reden, Friedrich von. 1839. Das K(jnigreie/¡ H1II1I11iI'er Gottingen. slalisriseh beschrieben, :lInáe/i.11 in Be:ie/¡ung /lu( Sehwart/. Johannes. 1<)8<).Eine Stral.\e im Wandel del' Zeit Landwirthschají, Cewerbe /lnd Hande/. Z\I'eile -Zur Geschichtc del' Bundesstrasse 3 im Raum Einbeck. ()()() Abl/¡ei/ung. Ver/¡á/lnisse des Ve rke/¡r.1 illl Kiiuigreic/¡e In 1:',\ /,egann mir 12 Ta/ern. Ce.lc/¡ic/¡Ie des Hannover /lnd den Nachbarslaalen; Wi.lsen.le/ilIfi und Slms.l('nh/lus in Niu/el'.lac/¡sen. Edited by Vereinigung Kunsl. Hanover. del' Strasscnbau- und Vcrkehrsingenieure in Schepe. Michaela. Die KettcnbrÜcke In Balllberg Niedersachsen.52-56. 1828-1829. In Romanrik und Resta/ll'!lrion. Arc/¡irekrur in Stcphenson, Robert, 1822. Beschreibung del' HiingebrÜcken, Bayern zur Zej¡ Ludwig.\ l. 1825-1848. Ex/¡ibiliou hook- Übersctlt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet von Herrn cata/oue, edited by Winfried Nerdinger. 163-164. Behrnauer. Ver/wnd/ungen des Vereins :ur Bej(jrderung Munich: MÜnchner Stadtllluseulll. des Ge\l'erhefleis.les in Preussen, 1: 115-128. Ber1in,