Talk:Union Chain Bridge

A fact from Union Chain Bridge appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 June 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Union Bridge across the River Tweed between England and Scotland was once the longest suspension bridge in the world and is now the oldest surviving?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/June.

Wikipedia

Bridges and Tunnels High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland: Transport in Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Mention should be made of the nearby Dryburgh Suspension Bridge, also on the Tweed, opened in 1817, but which only lasted four months before being collapsing. I think this is an important piece of contextual information!

The Dryburgh Bridge is referenced on the Captain Samuel Brown page. -- Kvetner 13:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Parliament

Can we leave this date (1802) alone please? If it's removed, it implies the bridge was authorised by an Act of Parliament in 1819 - but the Act was in 1802, not 1819, as is clear from the references in the bibliography. The authorisation to build the bridge was in 1819, but the Act was not - I hope that's clear! -- Kvetner 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to view the primary source in this case the "Berwick and Durham Roads and Tweed Bridges" act 1802. Was consent actually given for a bridge at this location? Also there was a later act in 1819 titled the "Durham and Berwick Roads and Bridges" which maybe more relevant. Would it be possible to add the actual text from "Union Chain Bridge - Linking Engineering', Gordon Miller, " to this discussion. I removed the date originally as it was given as 1902, which was obviously incorrect. I remove the reference to 1802 as the sentence was ambiguous "The bridge proposal, received consent via an 1802 Act of Parliament in July 1819 and construction began that year on 2 August." Thank you for clarifying the sentence. -- PeterNisbet 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text from Miller's paper reads as follows: "After considerable argument between Brown and the trustees concerning cost, and with the authority of an 1802 Act of Parliament, it was decided in July 1819 at a meeting in Berwick-on-Tweed to ac-cept Brown’s revised design." It doesn't give the name of the 1802 Act. This contradicts slightly what is said in "A Heritage of Bridges Between Edinburgh, Kelso and Berwick", where it instead states: "An Act of Parliament was obtained for the bridge in 1819 ..." This reference is older, it may be that Miller's research is more recent, but on the face of it, there's no clear reference to a primary source that would confirm things either way. I'd be happy for you to re-edit the article to address this, if you wish. I'll have a look and see if I can find anything else that refers. -- Kvetner 08:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Peter, if you set up an email address via preferences I can email you further information. -- Kvetner 08:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without viewing the acts I'd assume that the 1802 "Berwick and Durham Roads and Tweed Bridges" Act gives the power to the trustees to pursue the construction of a bridge over the tweed while the 1819 "Durham and Berwick Roads and Bridges" Act may give parliamentary consent to the construction of the Union Bridge. If this supposition is correct then the two sources quoted above don't contradict. However without reference to the text of the actual acts this is just guess work. There maybe copies of the acts at Berwick Borough Library, luckily I live close by so I'll have to investigate. Thanks for adding the quotes. -- PeterNisbet 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge closure 2007

The Bridge is currently closed to motor traffic. During a recent inspection it was found that one of the vertical hangers had snapped. -- PeterNisbet 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Berwickshire Today article reference on the article page here, and compare with the top paragraph of this article, you'll note a striking similarity - part of the BT article is just copied from here verbatim. -- Kvetner 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Union Chain Bridge. No such user (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Union Bridge, Tweed → Union Chain Bridge – The Union Bridge is generally always known as the Union Chain Bridge. This is what Visit Northumberland call it, for instance, and it's also what it's called by the Friends of the Union Chain Bridge. Additionally, using the longer name would remove the need to disambiguate the article by including the name of the river. Zacwill (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:NATURAL would at least be a tie breaker. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.