Talk:Tay Rail Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tay Rail Bridge has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	Tay Rail Bridge is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) This page previously said that "The first engine to cross the bridge was on September 22, 1877 and upon its completion in early 1878, the Tay bridge was the longest in the world." However, Victoria Bridge in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, was completed earlier (1859 vs 1878) and is substantially longer (over 5km/3mi vs 3.5km/2.25mi according to this article). Therefore I have changed the article to state that "...the Tay bridge was among the longest in the world." Victor.chisholm 05:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Template:Scotland opentask

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is maintained by WikiProject UK Railways.

I made Dduck's photo right aligned, which I think looks better. Given that image's aspect ratio is so great, it might squeeze the text on a small screen, however, so I wouldn't be heartbroken if someone felt it needful to revert it. -- Finlay McWalter 16:41, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I restructured the second sentence to read "It crosses the river west (upstream) of the Tay Road Bridge.". How far apart are the two? It would read better if it said "It crosses the river a quarter mile west (upstream) of the Tay Road Bridge." (or whatever the actual distance is). What is that distance? -- Finlay McWalter 16:52, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is the new rail bridge built over largely the same course as the fallen one? (If my memory serves, it is). If so, this fact deserves mention in the article. -- Finlay McWalter 16:52, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From which direction does the photo show the bridge? I'm guessing the photo looks North, in which case I'd say the caption should read Old Tay Rail Bridge (view Northward) or something. -- Finlay McWalter 16:52, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Finlay. I tried the picture in various places and I couldn't find anything I liked. Where it is new is fine. I found a website with some information about the placement of the second bridge, see below. From the diagram the old and the new bridges were built adjacent to one another. Regarding the photo, I always assumed it was looking from Dundee, but I think you're correct. That's the Law Hill in the background. Regards Iain. [1] Dduck 17:58, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an excellent page. I added the link to the article. -- Finlay McWalter 18:59, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have added new information about the disaster from our recent work on the engineering aspects of the accident, especially the critical nature of the cast iron lugs User Peterlewis, 20 Jan 2006

Contents 1 Were Marx & Engels booked on the disaster train ? 2 Charles McKean 3 Gales or a tornado(s)/waterspout(s)? 4 Little real Evidence

[edit] Were Marx & Engels booked on the disaster train ?

A weblog [2] in February 2003 contains the following:

"Also, a little extra bittie for you; did you know that Marx and Engels were scheduled to be on the train that went down with the Tay Bridge in 1879 but had decided to stay another night in Edinburgh with a friend. I can’t remember who told me this, so if it was you I’m sorry for nicking you’re trivia without credit."

Can anyone find an adequately sourced citation for this? DFH 13:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[3] states, "An academic urban myth in Dundee is that Karl Marx Founder of modern communism; wrote the Communist Manifesto with Engels in 1848; wrote Das Kapital in 1867 (1818-1883) would have been a passenger on the train had illness not prevented him from traveling on that date." So is it just an urban myth or was there some factual basis? DFH 13:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles McKean

Please explain the reasons why user:P.r.lewis removed my edits relating to Charles McKean's forthcoming book, and the Sunday Times review thereof. New information should not be summarily deleted like this. One should first discuss this in the talk page. I have therefore reverted the main page to my last edit. DFH 18:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How can a reader access a reference to a work which is not yet published? This violates the basic idea of any encyclopedia. Press articles are rarely referenced, for otherwise Wikipedia would be overwhelmed! I should also add that the new evidence quoted in the added text is not new and was revealed first by John Thomas. He discussed the evdence of a faulty girder in one of his final chapters. If you do add new text, you should ensure that it is correct. I think you should delete your addition and wait until the book is published and available to users of Wikipedia. user:P.r.lewis

There's nothing to stop users pre-ordering a book whose publication date has been announced. Perhaps the best compromise would be for you to cut'n'paste both of my edits to here in the talk page, then move them back again after publication. DFH 18:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wkipedia should not be used as advertising. In any case you have not answered my point about the supposedly new revelations. They were first exposed by John Thomas, and have been discussed further in several places. McKean is apparently addng nothing new to the debate of the causes of the TBD, but I will reserve judgment until I see the book. Entries must be verifiable according to the rule book. user:P.r.lewis

I have no connection with CMcK, so this is hardly advertising. I was merely reporting something that had been mentioned in a review of the book. It was the reviewer in the Sunday Times that called them new information. (Revelations is too strong a word). And Wikipedia does report news items! DFH 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How many journalists can you trust? They produce copy under pressure and at speed, rarely checking the truth of their assertions. The first report of the Tay bridge disaster said 500 lives had been lost, for example. An encyclopedia should aim rather higher I think. user:P.r.lewis

Indeed so, but let's not confuse the verified existence of a book review with verifying the statements set forth in the book. (In Wikipedia, where there are different views, we are still guided to report the controversy.) Moreover, it's far less likely for a book reviewer to misreport the contents of a book with the text in front of her, than it is for a journalist to misreport an event for which she was not an eye-witness. DFH 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

More than a century after the Tay Bridge disaster, a new book (Battle for the North: by Charles McKean, professor of Scottish architectural history at Dundee University) claims to show that the inquiry into the tragedy was a whitewash, based on previously unpublished papers.[4]

Back to the requirement of "must be verifiable", the sentences in the book review that caught my eye were, "Charles McKean, professor of Scottish architectural history at Dundee University, discovered four witness statements in the unpublished papers of Thomas Thorton, the Dundee-based lawyer of the North British Railway company, which show that the damaged girder caused trains to jump or bounce on the track for months before the disaster. The vital testimony was suppressed by the train company’s lawyer and never presented to the inquiry." (Emphasis mine). Just so I can understand your POV better, are you saying that John Thomas already knew about these papers? DFH 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly. You will fnd the reference in Chapter 12 of Thomas's book under the heading "Kink in the rails". The statements came from two painters on the bridge the summer before the accident (David Dale and John Nelson). They were made to Thorton in his offices but never reached the tribunal. They are significant but it does not follow that the Inquiry was a "whitewash" at all. In fact, the Inquiry saw much evidence of the poor work on the bridge which modern writers have tended to ignore. The vital evidence is the set of Inquiry photographs held by Dundee City Library. McKean is only repeating what is already known. You can verify my assertons by reading John Thomas's excellent book. The chair of the Inquiry, Henry Rothery, attributed the disaster to the high speed of northbound trains putting the towers under immense strain. The kink in the rails probably induced lateral vibrations which were transmitted to the towers, leading to fatigue and loosening of the joints. Such lateral movements were fully discussed by the Inquiry, and have recently been confirmed by Martin and Macleod, as well as by myself. The recent (2004) fall of the Kinzua viaduct in western Pennsylvania fell from a not dissimilar cause, and the forensic team estimated that the structure oscillated laterally about 4 times before before the corroded base bolts fatigued to criticality. I will be discussing this case in my own forthcoming book (Disaster on the Dee), which will not be mentioned on Wikipedia until actually published, and available to readers. John Rapley is also publishing a new book on Sir Thomas Bouch, also due in August, but again will not be discussed until published.

Thanks for clarification/explanations. DFH 18:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• McKean, Charles, Battle for the North: The Tay and Forth Bridges and the 19th Century Railway Wars, Granta Books, (August 7, 2006), ISBN 1862078521. DFH 19:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gales or a tornado(s)/waterspout(s)?

A recent change to List of European tornadoes and tornado outbreaks links here. The source for the final cause of failure there as waterspout(s) is here, though earlier as well as concurrent winter gales are mentioned. Is more information available on exactly what happened? Evolauxia 03:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little real Evidence

The assertion that a tornado/waters pout brought the brdge down is hghly speculative. It is based on just one "witness" who made the allegation. Many people were watching the bridge that night, and none reported such a phenomena.--P.r.lewis 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)