Talk:Forth Bridge

Opening heading

I am currently considering building a scale model of the Forth Rail Bridge for my model railroad. If anyone can send information regarding the bridge's length, height, height above water, etc, it would be most helpful. Please respond to: aol.com@hthalcott Thank you,

 Harvey T. Halcott

(Note that the above email address has been modified to make it confusing to spammers. Please switch what is before and what is after the @ sign if you wish to respond to Mr Halcott. -- Derek Ross | Talk)

I have located this information and added it to the article. --Colin Angus Mackay 15:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article name

I dont understand why this article isnt at Forth Bridge. The only other Forth Bridge isnt called the 'Forth Bridge' but the Forth Road Bridge, and the dab link at the top of the page sorts that out. Any reason not to move the article? ::Supergolden:: 13:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the present name is fine. Guinnog 19:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to persuasion, but at present I tend to support Supergolden's proposal. This article appears to have been unilaterally moved from Forth Bridge on 12 January 2006 (making that the dab page). I am not aware of any discussion having taken place prior to this.--Mais oui! 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that Forth Rail Bridge would be best. bruce89 21:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's name is the Forth Bridge, I can't think why it needed to be moved in the first place, again, without discussion having taken place. Fraslet 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Its name was the Forth Bridge. Most people now call it the Forth Rail Bridge. Wikipedia describes rather than prescribes usage. I am fine with the article named as it is and would resist moving it again. Guinnog 23:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Local useage is still very much "The Forth Bridge". I do not for a moment imagine the number of developments in the area with views of the Rail bridge using bridge in their name are reffering to the suspension bridge.Turtel 09:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just opened this article and was surprised to see it it incorrectly titled as "Forth Rail Bridge" when no such bridge exists. The bridge is, and always has been, the "Forth Bridge". The nearby suspension bridge is named the "Forth Road Bridge" to avoid confusion, however the rail bridge has only ever been named the "Forth Bridge" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.81.138 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

References

The references section needs to be formatted better. Use the <ref></ref> tags. DFH 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Large images causing problems in Firefox?

Not sure if this is just me, but when I view this article in Firefox, it starts to use up massive amounts of memory and there is a noticeable performance impact, however Internet Explorer handles it fine. I can only assume it is because of the massive panoramic image of the bridge, the only major difference between this article and most. Is it possible to get a lower resolution version to use in the article and just link to the high resolution version from there? QmunkE 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

70 foot diameter feet?

Is that accurate? They don't look that big on photographs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The main vertical steel tubes of the three main towers are 12 feet in diameter, and it is the granite piers that they stand on which are 70 feet in diameter. That part of the article is badly worded, but having said that, if a list of dimensions is going to be provided, it would be better to provide a simple drawing which shows which part of the structure is which. 82.29.215.250 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They wanted that bridge to be sturdy!!!! - Denimadept (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice

good work!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.116.72 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

seconded! - Denimadept (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What a cool image!

It looks forboding! - Denimadept (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Name again

No need to disambiguate. It is commonly referred to this as well and so distinguishes between the two bridges. Alternatively, it could be named Forth Rail Bridge. Simply south (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't format the WP:RM correctly, but your request has not been opposed, so I will just move it for you anyway. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To echo Simply South; the colloquial name is "Forth Rail Bridge", or failing that [when already talking in a railway context] "Forth Bridge", but not the current article name of "Forth Railway Bridge". WP:GHITS, whilst not canonical in all things agrees with this naming. —Sladen (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be so nice if ‘Forth Bridge’ came here, rather than to disambiguation. This page could give a link to ‘Forth Road Bridge’ for people (relatively few) looking for that. The Forth Road Bridge is very nice, beautiful in fact, but it is an achievement that has become routine in modern times. The Forth Bridge, however, is a legend; an amazing engineering novelty recognised everywhere. This is a problem that pervades Wikipedia actually, e.g. if you ask for Newton, you get the unit of force by default! How many enquirers want that? John Wheater (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article itself says it all - the bridge is called the Forth Bridge and nothing else. It is therefore simply incorrect to list it under anything else. Maybe have redirects from Forth Rail(way) Bridge, and keep the link to Forth Road bridge at the top of the article and Forth Bridges as disambiguation page, but the article surely must be listed under what it is official and most commonly used name??? Greenpousse2 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Construction

Could someone say what four-tower means in ‘three great four-tower cantilever structures’. Certainly there are three towers, nicely illustrated at [1], but I’m puzzled by the epithet.John Wheater (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the construction of each of those three towers. Specifically, at the details of what they're built from. - Denimadept (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, right, so I guess you're saying the meaning is 'three great four-tower towers', is that right? Please, rather than just this gnomic advice, could you please say simply what is the case? Many thanks. John Wheater (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Forth Railway Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• Why is this article called Forth Railway Bridge when the lead does not give that as one of the bridge's names?

• Name changed back to Forth Bridge to reflect official name.

• Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources.

• Extraordinary claims in introduction are all referenced.

• "The bridge is, even today, regarded as an engineering marvel." Who says so?
• This claim is no longer in the article.

• "Baker – "one of the most remarkable civil engineers Britain ever produced ...". All quotations need to be attributed.
• Claim no longer in article.

• "More than 55,000 tons of steel were used, as well as 18,122 m³ of granite ...". the article should be consistent about either presenting metric or imperial first, with a conversion to the other.

• All values appear to have been converted.

• "According to a 2004 New Civil Engineer report on contemporary maintenance ...". Needs to be cited.

• No longer in article.

• Four of the seven paragraphs in Construction are completely uncited. Where did the information come from? Similarly, the first and third paragraphs of Maintenance.

• All paragraphs appear to have been cited.

• Competition is too short to stand alone as a section. It also contains an external link. External links should be confined to an External links section.

• Popular culture is a Trivia section. Whatever is important should be incorporated into the article body, and whatever is kept needs to be cited.

• The Firth of Forth Road and Rail Bridges panorama need a proper summary, identifying the author.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Issues appear to have been resolved. I will request a re-evaluation. Davidkinnen (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

New Picture

Hello.

I changed the picture in the infobox at the top of the entry. The new one I feel reflects the location and the 'length' of the bridge better than the previous one. However, please talk to me if you disagree or boot it off the page. BTW, the last image was: image=ForthRailwayBridge 27-06-2005 2150 TakenByEuchiasmus.JPG

I am a big fan of the bridge and think it well deserves its reputation as an icon of Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Gastin (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Type of rail used on the bridge

The article currently states that "In 1992 the bridge was re-railed with standard BS113A rail (54 kg/m)." I do not think this is correct. Around the time of the re-railing, I read an article (in "Railnews" I think) stating that the new rail has a lower profile than standard and was known as "Hush" rail (as used on the Tyne & Wear Metro). –Signalhead ^< T > 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good-faith question moved here

“ In a report produced by JE Jacobs, Grant Thornton and Faber Maunsell in 2007 which reviewed the alternative options for a second road crossing, it was stated that the estimated working life of the Forth Bridge was in excess of 100 years. (100 years from original, or another 100 years?) ”

Note the question at the end of the paragraph. This should be clarified. - Denimadept (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When I find it, I will give a reference, but I have a book somewhere which says that at the time of its opening, Sir John Fowler was asked the design life of the bridge to which he replied that if properly maintained, it would last forever. Any structure like that can be kept going forever if you throw enough money at it - the issue is the viable remaining working life. You would need to ask the authors of that report exacly what they meant when they said 100 years, but once the estimnated life of a structure is that long or more, what you are actually saying is that for the forseeable future, it will be viable to keep maintaining it rather than there being a need to start budgeting to replace it. I think a similar issue arises with the main London sewers which have an estimated remaining life of over 500 years. 82.26.57.60 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative picture

Ive come accross a sketch of the bridge taken in 1892 in an antique book for tourism in edinburgh. I assume the relevant copyrights would have expired by now. If more experinced people to the set up of this article would like, I am more than happy to upload the image for use in this article. Please let me know. thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Financing

Is anyone able to add information concerning the financing of this project? I guess the pre-grouping railway company(ies) would have coughed up some finance but was there any other source? - (originally posted by) User talk:78.144.119.104

I have a book somewhere that has that information in it and when I find it I will put the information in and cite the reference. My recollection is that it was paid for by the North British, Caledonian, and Great Northern Railways, with the Midland Railway Company coughing up the largest share.82.26.57.60 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistent use of measurements

At the moment the article is inconsistent in its use of measurements. The GA reassessment says: '"More than 55,000 tons of steel were used, as well as 18,122 m³ of granite ...". the article should be consistent about either presenting metric or imperial first, with a conversion to the other.' As the Forth Road Bridge is consistently metric first, this is a point in favour of putting the metric measures first. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but first we need to decide how much the steel actually weighs. Some sources say 54,000 tons, some 54,000 tonnes, some 55,000 tons and some 55,000 tonnes! Any ideas? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One site says the bridge contains 50, 513 tons when riveted. [[2]] This is equivalent to 51323.5775 tonnes. If sources disagree, perhaps the best thing to do is to quote them, perhaps with this formula: Estimates of the amount of steel in the bridge vary from 51, 323 tonnes to 55,000 tonnes (50, 513 - 55,000 tons). Alternatively, choose one figure and quote it in the article, with a note that gives other figures, if this is thought necessary. Michael Glass (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've used the 50,513 tons figure for now. It's currently got the imperial weight first, pending the resolution of a problem with the conversion template that I've raised here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the template is fixed, so we now have metric first. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment moved from article space

The statement "is the one internationally recognized icon of scotland diminishes the idea that there are multiple internationally recognized icons. e.g. Edinburgh Castle, Loch Ness etc.

And the name is just plain wrong; it's called the Forth Bridge. That's its name, that's what people call it and that's what it is known by. Who writes this rubbish anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.241.151 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The description "the one internationally recognised Scottish landmark" is sourced to the Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland. This would seem to be a reliable source to me. Of course, it's not a fact but rather an opinion, but I think that the way the quote is used in the article makes that clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I've checked the source and the quote is in fact wrong. I'll correct it now. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On the article title point, I was about to move it to Forth Bridge since that's what we call it in the text. However, the Forth Bridges Visitors Centre Trust wesbite refers to it variously as the "Forth Rail Bridge" and the "Forth Railway Bridge" so I will wait for other opinions on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Forth Railway Bridge → Forth Bridge — Although the name "Forth Railway Bridge" is sometimes used to refer to the bridge, its correct name as used in the article text is the "Forth Bridge". The disambiguation link at the top of the article and the discussion in the lead section should make it clear enough to readers that the road bridge is a different structure. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- (also see several similar discussions above). The correct names are Forth Bridge and Forth Road Bridge. WP should use the correct name. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I had an open mind about this, but what swayed me is that "Forth Bridge" is a disambiguation page with only 2 entries, which should generally be avoided, in cases like this there should not be much of a margin to decide that one of them is the primary meaning, and if "Forth Bridge" is going to redirect here and it is the official name then we might as well make it the actual title. PatGallacher (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Cordeless Larry makes a convincing argument! 207.81.170.99 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Attribution of quote "one of the most remarkable civil engineers Britain ever produced"

Quite emphatically incorporated into the piece but no sign of where it came from. Do we know? 84.13.86.145 (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source for the quote so I've removed it. Thanks for the heads-up. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:British one pound coin 2004 Forth Rail Bridge.jpg

The image File:British one pound coin 2004 Forth Rail Bridge.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Revised picture

Hello,

I have replaced the previous main image of the Forth Rail Bridge which I uploaded in 2009 (image:Forthrailbridgefromsouthqueensferry.jpg) with this one (image:Forth_bridge_evening_long_exposure.jpg) as I have listened to opinion which has questioned the garishness of the sky and the size of the bridge compared to the foreground.

Also this image was taken in January 2011 so may more accurately reflect the condition and ongoing works on the bridge. If you feel that this image is not significantly better than the last one please edit accordingly.

Thanks,

George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Gastin (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

I think I prefer the original. It's certainly sharper than the new one. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

They've just finished repainting the bridge, would be great to replace some images with those without scaffold. Not saying those images are bad, the opposite in fact. It's just the bridge never looks its best whilst being painted.