diagonals were continuously interconnected. Åkesson points out that construction errors probably made the diagonals even less effective as thin members were placed where thicker ones should have gone and vice versa. The braces and counter-braces in a Howe truss must be the same size for the truss system to be robust and redundant. Making a brace stronger relative to a counter-brace, for example, actually reduces robustness and redundancy by changing the relative distribution of forces on the diagonals. These errors appreciably lessened the bridge's ability to withstand extra loading. Stone's strengthening of the bridge after the camber repairs also harmed the bridge's capabilities. By adding two I-beams to the end braces, Stone actually reduced the maximum stress the braces in the end panels could bear. Low temperature exacerbated the flaw in the lug Low temperatures the night of the disaster also worsened the metal fatigue in the already damaged lug. The role which low temperatures played in creating and worsening metal fatigue was also poorly understood in the 19th century. The temperature at the time of the accident was . Cast iron is prone to fracture and fatigue cracks, and Gasparini and Fields suggest that a significant fatigue crack, originating at the void in the lug, existed at the time of the disaster, created by repeated unequal stress over the previous 11 years. The low temperatures on the night of the accident increased the brittleness of the cast iron. An existing fracture worsened in the cold and likely caused the lug's failure. The issue of poor inspection Modern analyzes of the bridge collapse conclude that the railway had inadequately inspected and maintained the bridge. Åkesson, however, says that better inspection of the bridge may not have prevented a collapse. An inverted Howe truss puts the superstructure below the track, where it is difficult to see and inspect, and the angle blocks were hidden by the surrounding I-beams. Better inspection may have corrected some construction errors and identified falling shims, but might not have improved the bridge's survivability. Legacy The legislative joint committee drafted a bill that would have created Ohio's first bridge design code, required professional oversight of bridge construction, and mandated expert, frequent, regular inspections by civil engineers. The Ohio state legislature declined to act on the bill. Concern that the city lacked medical care for the victims of the bridge disaster, citizens of Ashtabula began raising money to