Talk:Grand Central Station (Chicago)

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Notified:

WP:CHICAGO, Gws57 (leading editor) next most leading editors SPUI and Lordkinbote

are now inactive and were not notified.

• There is no source given for the information in the last paragraph of Present day.
  • I had originally sourced this in an April 5 2008 edit. This was removed, but I just added it back.--
    WP:LOTM) 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• The last sentence of that same same section: "The exact timing of the newly proposed development will most likely be a long-term project due to the current glut of newly constructed condos in the downtown market and the credit crisis in the U.S. as well" doesn't make sense. The exact timing ... will be a project? What does "current" mean? 2008? Which credit crisis?
  • Yes early 2008. I no longer have the source, but I presume the credit crises caused by tightening of the mortgage lending markets.--
    WP:LOTM) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• The first paragraph of The B&OCT Bascule Bridge is uncited.
  • I added a ref that shows it was built in the 1930s after the river was widened.--
    WP:LOTM) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

A quick glance at the article causes me to notice that the articleis somewhat deficient in terms of citations. In terms of my personal standards for nominating an article for GAR, I probably would not have nominated the article. I certainly would not promote the article if it came to

WP:LOTM) 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Just for clarification, this is not a community GAR that requires a vote; it is an individual sweeps review. The article will remain listed as a GA if the above issues are addressed. If they are not then it will be delisted, a decision that can be challenged at

talk) 02:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a claim in the text that the the B&OCT Bascule Bridge and the St. Charles Air Line Bridge "share a common third counterweight between them". Not only is that dubious from a technical standpoint, but while looking on aerial views (available on the GoogleMaps and Bing) and other images available on the internet I found this to be actually not the case. I would kindly ask for a reference that supports this claim, or otherwise I will remove the claim. Tony Mach (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: This lengthy technical description I found does not describe any shared counterweight, as far as I can see. (Instead it describes the B&OCT bridge having one counterweight, and the SCAL bridge having two counterweights – no where in that lengthy technical description is anything described that would resemble a "shared common counterweight" in an even remote way.)

If there is a shared common third counterweight described somewhere, I would kindly ask someone to point out to me the relevant passage(s). Tony Mach (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following section, as it completely unsupported by references (and as far as I can see unsupported by reality):

However, it was not dismantled and currently sits locked in the "open" position. Because they are bascule bridges, both the B&OCT and the Air Line bridges each have a counterweight of their own, and in this case, they share a common third counterweight between them. This design allowed them to operate in unison, with an operator from the B&OCT in charge of operating both bridges. This has led to a curious historical oddity, as the CSX, successor railroad to the B&O, owns a bridge that it cannot abandon, because the bridge is needed to continue operating a second bridge it does not own.

Tony Mach (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have read the references more carefully. The HAER reference here, already included in the article (as reference #37 at the time of this writing) specifically mentions the shared, third counterweight on page 3. oknazevad (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Central Station (Chicago). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures%5C1606%5Ccopmarefys.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203111641/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/il/il0600/il0633/data/il0633data.pdf to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/il/il0600/il0633/data/il0633data.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]