Frisco Bridges

On November 6, 1882, W. W. Belknap submitted the Frisco's plans for the proposed bridge. They were rejected on November 24th.

Grounds for rejection:
1. Map submitted by the railroad company was not in conformity to law.
2. Bridge would be near the head of a bar that split the River. During low water boats take the channel to the right of the bar, whilst at ordinary high water the other is used.
3. The direction of the axis of the bridge and the location of the draw span are not favorable to navigation of the channel next to the town.
4. The difference between high and low water, as assumed by the company, is 32.5 feet, whereas it was 35.5 in 1844 and 39 in 1833.
5. The proper location of the bridge would be from 1,800 to 3,000 feet farther upstream.

On December 5, 1882 the Frisco replied that:
1. The location suggested is impracticable, since the curve approaching the bridge would require tunneling through the side of a steep bluff from 200 to 300 feet high, at an enormous expense, amounting to a prohibition to build the bridge at all.
2. That the draw-span is located where the main channel has been for thirteen years.
3. That the law declares that the bridge would be located at Van Buren.
4. That the navigation interests of the Upper Arkansas are insignificant.
5. That the company expects in good faith to conform to the requirements of the act as to the width of draw-spans and height of bridge.

It was stated that "excessive cost of the approach on the Van Buren side, which involved a curved tunnel in very difficult soil, amounted to a prohibition of the work."

On December 12, 1882 the Frisco submitted an amended bridge plan, to conform with the high water of 1844 (raised grade 3 feet).

A special board considered the Frisco's proposal and rejected it. They recommended a compromise location 550 to 600 feet further upstream.

A group of owners, captains, pilots and others engaged in commerce on the Arkansas also transmitted a protest against the proposed location.

Frisco then, on March 8, 1883, replied that:

(A) There would be little difference in either proposed site in regard to currents in the River. (B)The proposed location would endanger the transfer boat of the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway Company, "used by them jointly with that company, which carries almost the entire traffic of Fort Smith and vicinity and would be endangered by close proximity to the bridge while under construction at the upper location."(C)The cost of the bridge would be $50,000 greater than at the proposed Van Buren location, while commerce on the Arkansas River was so insignificant that it was not worth the sacrifice.

The Army Engineers replied on March 22, 1883 that: (A) The bridge approaches and piers would contract the width of the river and increase the velocity at Van Buren even more. (B) The danger to the transfer boat could be obviated by providing her with "ordinarily powerful machinery." (C) The $50,000 estimate seemed rather large. They also felt that they had already "given in" enough, especially since they had agreed to allow the construction some 2,000 feet downstream of the original site they had selected.

The Frisco then suggested that a Van Buren location would allow the bridge to also function as a wagon bridge, but that could not easily be done further upstream. (This was probably done in part to win more support in Van Buren. Many people there were opposed to the bridge as it would decrease the importance of Van Buren as a shipping point.)

November 6, 1883 a "memorial" from the citizens of Fort Smith suggested that "the rapidly increasing trade of that place, and that the region of country trading with it has a population of about 50,000, and ships from 20,000 to 30,000 bales of cotton besides other merchandise, which, owing to the bad condition of the navigation of the river, is dependent upon the two railroads crossing the Arkansas in a transfer boat at Van Buren, which only takes two cars at a time, and that for the want of a bridge at that point the commerce of that region is seriously embarrassed."

On January 26, 1884 the Frisco formally agreed to the last set of modified terms, and to take whatever steps might be necessary to restore navigation if the bridge disrupted it, and the bridge was erected at Van Buren.

The primary contractor for the bridge was the Union Bridge Company. William Sooysmith & Son, of Chicago, sub-contracted to do the caisson work. The bridge was of mixed iron and steel construction.  A total of 1,794,247 pounds of iron and 1,153,191 pounds of steel was used in the trusses. The actual construction on the bridge began in spring 1885. It was delayed first by high water and later by late delivery of iron The last steel (for completion of the pivot span) was received on Jan. 22, 1886 and the first train, #17 Southbound, crossed the bridge at 3:30 pm on Feb 9, 1886. Two men died during the construction of the bridge. A laborer drowned and a sub-foreman died of an apparent heart attack.

The bridge superstructure consisted of 4 fixed spans of 165' length on the south end and 3 fixed spans of 256'9" length, separated by a pivot span of 366' length on the north end. The spans were all 18' clear width. Total length of the original bridge was 1,798'. The pivot span, which rotated to allow river navigation traffic when necessary, rested on a circular 30' diameter rock pier and rotated on a 27' diameter cast and wrought-iron turntable. The wheels (bearings) were to be iron, 18" diameter, 8" tread. Hand power was used to operate the elevating screws and the turning gear. Everything, including the latches, was worked from the pivot pier.

The bridge was built with provision for wood planking to be placed by the railroad over the ties to permit the bridge to carry wagon traffic. This was apparently done and the bridge operated for many years as a dual purpose railroad - toll bridge.

Old newspaper accounts give some additional information about this bridge. The original cost is given at about $400,000.00.  The bridge apparently gave good service for many years.  About the only "event" which has turned up in records was the 1892 sinking of the steamboat John Matthews after it hit the bridge.  An October 4, 1913 article in the Southwest American stated that Frisco had the old trusses up for sale for about $51,000 delivered on the rivers edge or near Frisco tracks.  This worked out to about 1 3/4 cents/pound, quite a bargain if you were shopping for a bridge.  The newspaper article proposed using these spans (and acquiring a required additional span) to build the proposed Garrison Avenue bridge in Fort Smith. 

It can be said with certainty that the decision by Frisco to save money by doing the replacement work, themselves, was not one of their best decisions.  By the end of December local newspapers had dubbed the new bridge the "Jonah Bridge."  Although much of the preliminary work had been at least partially finished, a large amount of money had been spent and the bridge now had a large gap in it over the deepest part of the river channel.  Prospects of the Frisco finishing the bridge anytime soon were also bad.  They had "lost" their only 106 ton derrick into the river, along with its 3 man crew (all three apparently survived although at least one was badly injured).

On January 1, 1914 the reconstruction of the bridge was turned over to the Kansas City Bridge Company which had only a few years before built the "Free Bridge."  The Frisco's laborers were discharged and a professional team took over the project.  Newspaper accounts of the time placed the cost so far as over $500,000.00.  One man had already been drowned.  "Delays and expense have been greater in its construction than any other bridge the Frisco has endeavored to build." By January 11 trains were again using the bridge although it was many months before everything was completely finished.  On April 7, 1914 newspapers announced that the steel work was finally finished.  One account gave the final death toll for this "second bridge" as 2 killed and three badly injured.

The loss of a span before the "second" bridge was even finished seems to have been a sign of things to come.  This bridge has lost several spans to floods and modernization projects through the years and only about half of the original "second" bridge now remains.

After the "first flood" the missing southern approach to the Free Bridge was replaced with a temporary pontoon bridge, primarily to restore Fort Smith's water line connection with Lake Fort Smith.

The "second flood" occurred before the water completely receded and much could be done about the damage which was already done. The crest at Fort Smith this time was 38.8 feet on May 23. This was the flood which apparently finished off the first span (Van Buren side). This "second flood" also destroyed a large section of the pontoon bridge which had temporarily restored water to Fort Smith.

The Press Argus ran an article on 13 Aug 1943 discussing the Frisco's rebuilding project. Frisco was replacing it's southern approach trestle to the Frisco Bridge with what some considered a "stone dam". It was apparently felt, by a number of individuals and groups, that the project was placing both Van Buren and Fort Smith in even greater danger should another flood of equal or greater magnitude occur. The Frisco felt obligated to explain what it was doing, which it did in an article published in the Argus on 20 August.

"We are not building any more of a dam across the river than was there originally. You are probably under a misapprehension as to what our plans actually contemplate. We are filling in 700 feet of trestle at the extreme south side and raising the grade line, but we intend to extend the steel work of the bridge 250 feet beyond what it was before by placing an additional 300 foot span and one 50 foot span and we believe this will be sufficient to take care of any flood and with this permanent opening of 350 feet added on the south side of the river, pressure on the Van Buren side ought to be materially relieved. J.M. Kurn" (NOTE: Where the article earlier says "250 feet beyond" is probably a typo and it should have read "350 feet")

Actual water levels at Van Buren during the 43 floods included:
May 9 - 7.3 feet
May 10 - 21.2 feet
May 11 - 31.8 feet
May 12 crest 1 PM 38.9 feet

There was a slow drop from this point until the River reached 27.8 feet on May 18 From then the River slowly rose again until it reached a crest of 37.1 feet at 3 PM on May 23.