A Retrospective on Aiken’s Railroad Bridges: Part One

By Laura Lance

Part One of Three:
– Questions on Restoration
– Just How Old is That Old Bridge?
– The 1990s
– The Elements
– Some Recollections

__________________________

Questions on Restoration

Recent discussions on the Fairfield Street bridge have centered around the possibility of making it a pedestrian-only bridge. Matters of historic preservation and restoration have naturally been part of these conversations. At least one person has raised the possibility of a study to see if, rather than resorting to demolition, the existing bridge — whose components have all been found to be in poor to failed condition — can be restored, partially or in full, to serve as a pedestrian bridge. 

Most any structure can be restored, given enough time and money.  The question becomes, what is realistically possible for this bridge?

Specialists in historic wooden bridge restoration could bring insights to the table. Local officials with knowledge of the past could attest to the bureaucratic gridlock and the lack of funding that have kept these bridges in a chronic state of decay and disrepair for much of the past 175 years. As a native to Aiken, I can offer that the two railroad bridge collapses that occurred during my lifetime were attributed, in great part, to erosion, lack of maintenance and/or a heavy rainfall.

Certainly, the railroad bridges are historic; the railroad cut is historic; the role of the railroad in the founding of Aiken is historic. But what do we really know of this history? What physical aspects of this history are we seeking to preserve? What is physically left to restore?

ABOVE: View of the tracks in railroad cut as seen from bridge.
Photograph: carlfbagge. Flickr album: Aiken, 2008.

Some Histories

Just How Old is That Old Bridge?

Aiken’s old wooden railroad bridges didn’t arrive to the late 20th century/early 21st century era with their original 19th century construction. While records on these bridges are spotty, sometimes contradictory, sometimes incorrect, and often difficult to confirm, enough records exist to show that all of these bridges have been heavily altered, rebuilt and/or replaced to varying degrees over the years. None of these bridges retains its original construction.

This is because the lifespan of the wood in the old bridges was measured in decades, not centuries. The most recent replacements of the York Street bridges illustrate this ongoing reality. The bridges were demolished and replaced in 1994. Less than 25 years later, in 2017, the bridges were again demolished and replaced, the latter replacement a single-span steel hybrid bridge with wood decking, wood railings, and a predicted lifespan of some 75 years.

The proposed Fairfield Street bridge replacements also reflect this reality. In the May 6, 2025 Design Review Board (DRB) meeting, three options were presented for the Fairfield Street bridge replacement (see pages 196-197 of the DRB Agenda package). The life cycle costs on Options 2 and 3 (see page 158 of this same agenda package) include bridge replacement every 30 years.

  • Option 1; a single-span steel hybrid bridge similar to the 2017 York Street Bridge replacement.
  • Option 2 — a 3-span Glu-lam timber bridge. .
  • Option 3 – a 3-span timber bridge similar to the existing bridge.

A speaker in this same meeting said that the Fairfield Street bridge replacement “may likely serve us for the next 100 to 150 years, like the current bridge had.” This may have left some individuals with the impression that the wooden structure we see today is original to its 1899 construction, which is not accurate. 

So how old is that bridge? How old is the decking? The foundation? How old are the timbers in the railings, girders, beams, piles and piers?

Norfolk Southern spokespersons have been quoted as saying that all of Aiken’s wooden bridges were replaced in 1952, which would be the same year a second York Street bridge, (the northbound lane), was added. This would be a logical timeframe, as it would coincide with the influx of federal dollars and some 100,000 workers and new residents to Aiken in 1952 during the construction of the Savannah River Plant. If true, the oldest timbers of the Fairfield Street bridge may date to 1952, with the most recent timbers dating to repairs in 1999 and 2009. 

The 1990s

Pick a decade, any decade. The stories are remarkably similar, repeating from one to the next. The 1990s is as good a time as any to recap the typical issues these bridges have brought to the table over the course of any decade.

September 1990: City Council discussed the continuing deterioration and need to replace the bridges at Fairfield, York and Newberry Streets. Also on tap were discussions on upkeep and funding, with City Attorney James Holley citing an 1890s agreement that stipulated the railroad company would maintain the bridges, but which hadn’t specified the standards for that maintenance.

April 1991: City Council discussed the possibility of using funds available through the Federal Bridge Replacement Act to replace the Newberry and York Street bridges. (The Fairfield Street bridge did not qualify for this funding.) According to SC Department of Transportation (SCDOT) estimates, the replacements for Newberry and York Street bridges would cost, respectively $352,000 and $604,000. The City and Southern Railway each agreed to pay 10% of these costs. 

October 1991: City Council approved an agreement with the SCDOT for replacement of the Newberry and York Street bridges. The work was to be tackled within the next 2 to 5 years. At that time, the SCDOT also recommended closing the Fairfield and Union Street bridges.

March 1993: Norfolk Southern started work demolishing and rebuilding the northbound lane of the York Street bridge. The southbound lane followed, with work completed in December 1993. 

August 1993: The SCDOT backed out of the October 1991 agreement due to a later SC Highway Commission decision to replace only a fraction of the state bridges earlier committed to. 

September 1993: City Manager Steve Thompson said during a City Council meeting that railroad bridges at Newberry, Fairfield and Union needed replacement. He said that the cost estimates, which he placed at about $450k per bridge, were prohibitive for the City.

October 1994: An Aiken Standard editorial made mention that the Fairfield and Union Street bridges had recently been rebuilt. (I was unable to find confirmation that this happened, although, but did find a February 2016 SCDOT bridge inspection report stating that existing Fairfield Street bridge was “built” in 1992).

October 1995: The Newberry Street bridge was closed after SCDOT inspectors found “holes in the surface” and “the soil around the foundation caving in.”1

February 1997: The SCDOT bridge design engineer was quoted in Aiken City Council minutes as saying the Union, Fairfield, York and Chesterfield Street bridges were in “relatively good shape.” 

July 1997: Work began on the Newberry Street bridge replacement at a cost of approx. $1.15 million (not quite double the 1991 estimate), with the majority of funding coming from the Federal Highway Department.

February 1999: The Fairfield St. Bridge was briefly closed to repair rotten timber, pilings. and bridge decking.

Two notable points emerge from reading the accounts of the 1990s. For one, the railroad company wanted to turn over responsibility for all future bridge upkeep, maintenance, repairs and replacements to the City. For another, the SCDOT was recommending the permanent closure of both the Fairfield and Union Street bridges. 

The Elements 

Aiken’s climate is ideal for wood decay, between the annual rainfall and warm temperatures, both of which are friendly to the fungi and bacteria that break down wood. Aiken’s rainfall has also been responsible for the erosion, flooding, stormwater issues, landslides and cave-ins that have undermined tracks, bridge foundations, and properties adjacent to the railroad cut over the past 175 years. 

Railroad cut erosion from 2008. Photographs: carlfbagge. Flickr album: Aiken, 2008.

An 1893 newspaper account described a badly washed embankment at the Laurens Street bridge. An 1899 account described more of same due to a heavy rainfall. A 1912 landslide caused a train to wreck, derail, and damage the supports to the Newberry Street bridge.  In 1917, a particularly large landslide behind the Wilcox disturbed guests as an estimated 100 tons of red clay fell, covering the railroad track. Several landslides occurred in the railroad cut in 1925.

In 1929, a torrential rainfall — said to be the heaviest rain in the memory of some of Aiken’s oldest residents — flooded the railroad cut, causing a landslide in the railroad cut near Chesterfield Street and completely submerging the tracks in some areas. In 1959, a heavy rain flooded the railroad cut at the Union Street bridge — a chronic issue dating back to the 19th century.

Issues of bridge condition and erosion inside the railroad cut continued throughout the 1960s and 1970s and onward. According to a 1971 Aiken Standard article titled, “Railroad Cut Bridges are Major Problem for City,”2 local officials had “repeatedly called he railroad’s attention to its responsibility in maintaining the bridges” and implored them to address “grave concerns at the generally deteriorating condition of the Laurens Street bridge.” The City manager wrote directly to the railroad president.

In 1971, for the second time in a year, the Laurens Street bridge was closed and declared “unsafe.”3 A combination of causes was cited — erosion, lack of maintenance, and a heavy rain that undermined the track, severed a water main in the cut, and caused the bridge’s concrete foundation to crack.

In 1974, as contractors for the City worked to install a stormwater drainage pipe, the bridge collapsed. Afterward, the city manager was quoted in an Aiken Standard article titled “Council to Consider Bridge Suit,” as saying the bridge “was not in sound condition before it fell,” and saying about the railroad company, “We feel that they do have liability for the collapse.”4

In 1975, the Laurens Street bridge was replaced with a pre-stressed concrete and steel bridge. History repeated 37 years later with a second bridge collapse in 2012.5

In the wake of the second collapse, matters of the railroad cut were discussed during an April 17, 2012 City Council meeting, excerpts of which can be read in the four screenshots below. 

ABOVE: Four screenshots from April 17, 2012 City Council meeting minutes. Click to view full-size.

Over the past decade, three major stabilization projects have been completed in the railroad cut, with most of the work occurring in the embankments behind the Wilcox, between the Newberry and Chesterfield Street bridges:

— 2017 Stabilization of the York Street bridge abutments using soil nails and colored shotcrete during the replacement of the two bridges. 

— 2017 Stabilization of the railroad cut embankment at the Chesterfield Street bridge using soil nails and colored shotcrete as part of a stormwater drainage project.

— 2018 Stabilization of the embankment behind the Wilcox Inn to address the growing threat to the foundation of the historic inn caused by a chronic erosion and acute damages caused by fallen trees/loss of root structure in the embankment during the ice storm of 2014. This was a two-phase project, named the Historic Railroad Cut Stabilization Project, which involved geotechnical evaluation of the embankment, followed by extensive work to stabilize the embankment including soil nails and the application of colored shotcrete. The $2.18 million project was funded with FEMA grants and matching local funds. 

ABOVE: Images from the three railroad cut stabilization projects completed in 2017 and June 2018.. Note the shotcrete (concrete) covered embankment in the staircase photo, dyed to match the native clay. Photographs: Michael Aiken

ABOVE: June 2025 images of the railroad cut stormwater drainage and stabilization work behind the Wilcox Inn and beside the Chesterfield Street bridge completed in 2017-2018. Note that the surface treatment is shotcrete, a type of concrete product, that was dyed to match the color of the native red clay. Photographs: Michael Aiken.

No matter if crossed by foot, wagon, horse or car, Aiken’s wooden bridges have always been high-maintenance, needing frequent, inspections, upkeep, repairs, and some form of rehabilitation every 7-8 years; some would argue 10-15 years. The bridges have needed major rebuilding or replacement every 20-30 years. The railroad cut has likewise needed regular inspection, and the recently-stabilized embankments and bridge abutments will likewise need periodic inspections.

Whose job will this be going forward? Who, if anyone, is responsible for addressing standing water and erosion in the railroad cut? Who has the power to enforce that responsibility? What authority, if any, does the City have to protect the foundation of a bridge planted on someone else’s property?

The railroad cut viewed looking east from the newly-built York Street in 2017. The Fairfield Street bridge, closed in 2016, is visible in the near distance. Photograph: Michael Aiken.

Some Recollections

I grew up with these bridges. I always liked their ramshackle construction and the familiar clickity-clack sounds of the decking boards when cars crossed over. In my earlier years, I regularly crossed all the bridges on foot to go downtown to the movies, the pool hall, the sub shop, the stores, school and the library (then located at the corner of Hood and Laurens). The Fairfield Bridge, with its leafy canopy of trees, was always my favorite. I crossed it with my best friend on summer days to buy comic books and candy at the Johnson Drug store. I have vivid memories of crossing it on spring mornings on my way to Schofield and pausing halfway across the bridge, just to take in the pretty view down the east side of the track. Today, even in its decline, the Fairfield Street bridge is the only wooden bridge that still looks like old Aiken. The others are all changed now; ruined.

Although the new design for the York Street bridge is an improvement over the generic, concrete ugliness of the Laurens Street bridge replacement, I still miss the dark, creosote-soaked timbers of the old bridges. I miss the decking boards laid perpendicular to the sides. That’s what makes the memorable clickety-clack sound. Whatever their construction, those old wooden railroad bridges felt solid to me.

ABOVE: Bridge deck detail on Fairfield Street bridge in 2008. Photograph: carlfbagge. Flickr album: Aiken, 2008.

The Union Street bridge was always the outlier. Most people either love or hate the Union Street bridge. It was always my least favorite, even before the time I became airborne during my first trip over it as a teenage driver in the 1970s. For as long as I can remember, the Union Street bridge, or “high bridge” as some called it, felt and looked rickety. I recall the flimsy, higgledy-piggledy pipe-and-wire railing persisting well into my adulthood. I never had much good to say about that bridge, except to say thank goodness I made it to the other side.

In 2003, as the finishing touches were being put on the latest replacement of the Union Street bridge decking, the SCDOT received a citizens’ petition to close the bridge to vehicular traffic due to the limited sight distance available to drivers going over the bridge. City Council discussed this in a June 9, 2003 work session. Citizens in attendance advocated for keeping the bridge open. The consensus among Council members, according to the meeting minutes, was to keep the bridge open and review the area for possible speed bumps, speed signs, and signage to warn pedestrians of traffic.

If I’d been active in City issues at that time, I could have told them about the long-ago morning when my brother saw an elderly man on foot crossing the Park Avenue intersection at the bottom of the Union Street bridge. The man stumbled and fell in the roadway, then just laid there. Was the man sick? drunk? dead? My brother, who was just a kid, stood there frozen, not knowing what to do. A car could come over at any second and roll over the man. If my brother went to the man’s aid, might they both be hit?

That was the thing about that bridge. It was like driving off a cliff; a Thelma and Louise moment every time you crossed. Even driving as slow as a snail, there was no telling what was on the other side until you got there. Fortunately the odds were in the man’s favor. After a few long moments, he got up and continued on his way.

Next

Part Two of Three
The Charleston-Hamburg Line
Romantic Notions
Learning Curves
The Railroad Cut

For Reference

FEATURE PHOTO: Bridges over Aiken Railroad Cut. Front to back, York St bridges, Fairfield St bridge, and Union St bridge.Photographer: carlfbagge. Flickr album: Aiken, 2008. https://www.flickr.com/photos/12535240@N05/2238403088/in/album-72157623125207498

  1. Kirkland, Chasiti, “Bridge May Be Closed for Two Years.” Aiken Standard, October 25, 1995. 
  2. Hindman, Emily. “Railroad Cut Bridges Are Major Problem for City.” Aiken Standard, September 9, 1971. 
  3. “Laurens Street Bridge Closed; Declared Unsafe.” Aiken Standard, June 22, 1971. 
  4. Wendel, Debbie. “Council to Consider Bridge Suit.” Aiken Standard, May 8, 1974. 
  5. Banton, Amy. “Laurens Street Bridge May Open Today.” Aiken Standard, October 4, 2012. 

4 thoughts on “A Retrospective on Aiken’s Railroad Bridges: Part One”

  1. When I was a student at Aiken High in the late 60s I drove a school bus. In the summer, I drove for Head Start. My Head Start route took me from Park Ave. to Colleton Ave. on Fairfield Street. Many times I’d look at the Union Street Bridge a block away and wonder what it would be like to drive my 60 passenger bus over that bridge. Of course I never did, but I always wondered. In the early 60s I used to play in the railroad cut, mostly between the Wilcox Hotel and Laurens Street. I still remember the strong smell of creosote under the Laurens St. bridge.

  2. Those bridges are a meaningful symbol of Aiken’s heritage and history and part of what makes it unique. I am rather surprised that the city has left the Fairfield St bridge closed in disrepair for so long. It seems apparent that it doesn’t need to letter historic replacement as much as it just needs to be replaced in a functioning durable fashion in wood using newer technology. Pricey, yes, but worth it. The delay has only made it more expensive.

  3. A very impressive document with remarkable details and thoughtfully posed questions. Thank You.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *