This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bridges and Tunnels Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The truss seems to do more than just support a fence. For that bridge to be a beam bridge, the floor beam would have to suffice for the bridging. Joefaust (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this is suggested as a beam bridge is that the upper chord is so thin - it would likely have to be much more robust to resist compression forces while the lower chord could in turn be much thinner. I agree that the image is ambiguous and perhaps even inappropriate. Please feel free to obtain and substitute a less ambiguous image of similar application - Leonard G. (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully at the image (I've left the original note with it) you will see a bright red Warren truss through the parapet. This is what gives the bridge its strength. Seam.us (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

clearly, this page is a stub, but anyone seems to lack things to say about the subject, may they be reminded that the beam bridge has thousands of notable and historic examples as well as disasters, types, and evolution of the entire art of bridgebuilding. although this does not help the reader currently, i believe that they would make great topics to add more text and information to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.53.122 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add such text and examples. - Denimadept (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“Simple beam bridge?” Yup. “I-beam bridge?” You betcha. “T-beam bridge.” Posilutely. “Continuous beam bridge?” Absotively. “Beam bridge?” That exists pretty much only on Wikipedia, or other equally reliable sites, or as shorthand for “simple beam bridge.” Qwirkle (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common term in bridge theory, even if almost no bridges (beyond the backyard scale) are built as simple beams.

Considering the simplest bridge as just a beam is the beginning of mechanical analysis for studying more complex bridges too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I wrote above, that’s pretty much shorthand for “simple beam bridge”, or sometimes even loose usage for “simple beam”.

To the very limited use that the unmodified term “beam bridge” might be seen in construction, it’s a simple log bridge, a plank, a stone slab bridge, or a small concrete slab...i.e., nothing to do with several examples in the article. Qwirkle (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]