Jump to content

Talk:Clackline Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleClackline Bridge is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 30, 2014.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2014Good article nomineeListed
March 13, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
May 29, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 9, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first car to cross Clackline Bridge carried two politicians and a boy who hitched a ride?
Current status: Featured article

Quick construction!

[edit]

"Construction began in August 1935, and was completed relatively quickly, with the opening ceremony held in August 1935. " If this is correct, stet. --Wetman (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting that error, an IP editor has corrected it to January 1935 [1]. - Evad37 [talk] 01:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

[edit]

Comments/suggestions, as requested on my talk page:

In the Description section, two decimal places seems excessive for the length - "It has 18 spans over a 126.35-metre (414.5 ft) length"

For the sake of consistency, it might be better to have all of the lengths in digits, even when a whole number up to 10 (which MOS:NUMERAL would otherwise suggest should be words - but are they really integers in this context, or just real numbers rounded to zero decimal places?), eg "13 spans six 6 metres (20 ft) in length".

The sentence "Piers 14 to 17 are parallel to that former railway, at an angle of approximately 40 degrees." appears to be self-contradictory - an angle of 40 degrees is not consistent with the usual definition of parallel. Should it be "... at an angle of approximately 40 degrees to [something other than the railway, eg the road]"?

I didn't notice any problems with the tenses.

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In tern"?

[edit]

Note 1 says "... long horizontal beam, supported over each pier or abutment, in tern supporting ..."

Is "tern" correct or should it be "turn"? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo on my part, I have now corrected it to "turn" - Evad37 [talk] 00:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

steel beam weight

[edit]

"The 14-metre (46 ft) span over the railway alignment was originally supported on four 610-by-190-millimetre (24.0 by 7.5 in) steel beams, weighing 41 kilograms (90 lb) each" - 41 Kg seems a bit light, maybe it should be tonnes or it is 90 pounds per foot or some other such thing? Otherwise the material science of the 30's would be pretty good and we could build that space elevator after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.2.247 (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote from the source is: "The 14 metre span over the railway is supported on the four original 610mm x 190mm 41 kilogram steel beams." - Evad37 [talk] 06:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is quoted with veracity but a total beam weight of 41 kg is obviously wrong. A data sheet from a steel supplier coincidentally local to the bridge (http://www.swsteel.com.au/Assets/structuralsteel_steeldata.pdf) has modern 610 mm beams at up to 125 kg/m. Since that converts to 38.1 kg/ft it appears the quoted 41 kg arose from conversion of an original lb/ft unit weight of a slightly heavier beam. At 41 kg/ft (134.5 kg/m) each 14 m beam would weigh a shade under 1.9t; far more realistic. It would appear the author of the source document was sloppy with their units, leading to confusion between unit weight and overall weight. Shythylacine (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds plausible as an explanation, but would violate the WP:NOR policy if used in the article. Maybe we should just not mention the weight? - Evad37 [talk] 13:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be confusion between stringers and crossbeams here. Quote: "The bridge's original spans were made up of seven rounded timber wandoo stringers..." and then it goes on to say that the 14-metre span over the railway line was originally supported on the beams disputed above. I think these four beams are actually crossbeams on which the stringers rest, but unfortunately the term used in the reference is "beams" rather than "crossbeams". Even if they are crossbeams, they would still be at least five-and-a-half metres long to accommodate the original width, and I'm pretty sure that each would be heavier than 41 kg. It still looks like the math is faulty or a zero or two has been missed. Akld guy (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some photos if that helps. - Evad37 [talk] 00:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • View from north side
    View from north side
  • View from south side
    View from south side
  • Closer up, from south side
    Closer up, from south side
I'm not sure what you intend the photos to convey. They show steel stringers that look like they're 14 metres long and span the path formerly taken by the rail lines. However the text makes clear that the stringers were originally of timber, and the "beams" supported them. So it's in the historical context that we're discussing the beams and they cannot be the same as the girders shown in the photos since these girders must have been added later when the bridge was upgraded. Akld guy (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clackline Bridge. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clackline Bridge. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clackline Bridge. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clackline_Bridge&oldid=1206706975"