Talk:Victoria Bridge, Bath

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Somerset Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bridges and Tunnels Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

(Reverted 2 edits by Anmccaff: Rv - "cable stayed" is a definition primarily about geometry, not materials. No objection to eyebar chain, but this should not imply support from a catenary. (TW))

But it -is- supported from a chain suspension, right down to the hanger level, where cable-stayed elements show up. (Except at the first bay, where there is a stay directly into the tower.)

No time to fix this properly, but read the Griffiths paper. Undid revision 690735760 by Andy Dingley (talk)) (undo | thank)

Umm, read it; what do you think it adds that isn't obvious on inspection of the structure? It makes it pretty clear that both the author, and the designer's contemporaries, saw this as a suspension bridge with a compression-stiffened deck, not all that far in concept from self-anchoring bridges. "hybrid suspension/cable stayed" works OK; "cable stayed" alone does not. Anmccaff (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note the dispute about the use of the term cable-stayed bridge or suspension bridge between User:Andy Dingley and User:Anmccaff which has left a "dubious" tag on the article. I don't have enough engineering knowledge to really get involved in this but note the Griffiths paper says "hybrid suspension / cable stayed", and edit summaries about "eyebars, cables or rods, catenary etc" Is there a form of words which could be used to describe the structure and remove the "dubious" tag (which makes this article appear at the cleanup list for wikiproject Somerset)?— Rod ^talk 10:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a proper cleanup - and the Griffiths paper is a good source for doing so.

In terms of engineering history, this is an important bridge - why it has survived recent years despite so much pressure to demolish it. If the work had started a few years later, in the current philistine period of history, it probably would have been demolished. It's very widely regarded as important for being the first cable-stayed bridge.

Despite that it isn't a cable-stayed bridge. Nor is it a suspension bridge. It's a Dredge taper bridge, and I think unique as a surviving one for vehicle traffic (I think there are some footbridges). Dredge is important, as is Fairbairn, for representing Victorian post-Telford bridge design. A mathematical analysis of the physics behind a bridge gave rise to a whole new design, rather than the previous generation of gradually stretching the same archetypes. It's more important for that design approach than it is for the Dredge design itself, or for this one specific bridge. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think a real source of bad information on Wikipedia is a desire to reduce articles to the point that everyone finds them innocuous, taking out necessary content in the process, and sanitizing disputes rather than getting to the bottom of them. This bridge design has elements of two design families, and does not quite fit in either of them completely. Anmccaff (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for responses. I'm trying to understand the concepts under debate here and wonder if you could, between you, come up with a paragraph or two which explains (for the non specialist reader (eg me)) the different stand points and the fact that this bridge has aspects of two different approaches.— Rod ^talk 11:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of the issues. Early usage described both sorts as 'chain bridges' or 'suspension bridges' -or, rather, 'bridges of suspension'. Cable-stayed bridges didn't really have a separate name; the artist now known as suspension bridge was called various things that played on the word 'catenary', the shape a chain takes under its own weight when loosely stretched across two supports. Stevenson used 'catenarian' to describe what we would call a 'suspension bridge' today in 1821. So, we have a shift of meaning, with "suspension bridge" becoming a more particular, specific thing over time, which makes reading of primary and early secondary sources tricky.

Next, few early whatever the hell we are talking about were purely suspension, or purely cable stayed, although there are some obvious exceptions, Dryburgh, for example.

Unlike, however, the relatively common fitting of a suspension bridge, in the modern sense, with auxillary cable stays, as we see in the Brooklyn Bridge or even the (roughly) cable-stayed with auxiliary catenary we see in Albert Bridge, London, this beast is (roughly) a catenary bridge with cable-stays instead of hangers. It's a cousin, in some senses, of self-anchored suspension bridges, in that the design can be -and was, if memory serves- erected in stages with minimal falsework.

This is only a start; there's a lot more that needs to go into this. Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Andy do you have any thoughts?— Rod ^talk 18:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, Anmccaff (and anyone else interested), It has now been some months since the discussion about the use of Cable-stayed bridge and alternative terms/definitions. Have you had any thoughts about how this could be resolved with a form of words which would clearly describe to the reader the key issues. Would "hybrid suspension / cable stayed" resolve the dispute?— Rod ^talk 16:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about, ""VB, Bath is a Dredge taper bridge, a type which modern viewers often see as a hybrid between a suspension bridge and a cable-stayed bridge"? Covers the fact it is in some ways kind to pigs, and that it has elements of what are now seen as distinct types? Andy Dingley, what say you? Anmccaff (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no more contributions to this debate I have used your suggestion. If anyone still objects I'm sure we discuss it further here.— Rod ^talk 21:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]