Talk:List of longest cable-stayed bridge spans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early article comments

I think this page should be renamed List of largest cable-stayed bridges. The bridges are not ranked by overall length, so longest is misleading. Suspension bridges are commonly called "large" by the size of the main span. This is also the way List of largest suspension bridges is named. Also, cable-stayed needs a hyphen. -- Samuel Wantman 07:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just leave a redirect at the old name. --Thetrick 08:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved -- Samuel Wantman 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

New bridge in Thailand

Not sure where this new bridge should be placed in the list. It is two bridge joined together with an entrace/exit at the middle. For now, it is called Mega Bridge. It will be opened in upcoming months with the new official name. [1] [2]. -- Lerdsuwa 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Add Hale Boggs Bridge (near Luling, LA)

Please add the Hale Boggs Bridge to this list.

This was the first major cable stayed bridge in the United States. Refer to other Wikipedia articles for information such as span length, date of construction, etc.

Thanks 192.234.241.102 15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. VerruckteDan 23:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Add more info into the table?

Anyone intersted in having the tower type (H-shape, diamond shape, etc.) and cable arrrangement (fan, semi-fan, harp) added to this table? - SCgatorFan 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fan or harp

I think there should be a column on the list that says if they bridge is of the harp or fan variety. --AnY FOUR! (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rank of multispan bridges

Elevation chart of the bridge.

Ordinary bridges consists of one main span and two side spans. The side spans are excluded from this article, only the main span counts. Rio-Antirio bridge has two side spans and three main spans (full spans), so it is in effect several bridges and really should occupy more than one position in the ranking list. It has three full spans but I dont think it should have three positions because this article does not list full spans, but bridges. Rio-Antirio bridge looks like two ordinary bridges placed adjacent to each other, with the right side span of the first touching the left of the second, thus forming the middle full span. I would like to give Rio-Antirio bridge two positions in the rank list because it uses the same amout of material and construction effort that two normal bridges would use. So now it counts as the 11th and 12th longest bridge.

The Millau Viaduct looks like three and a half ordinary bridges placed adjacent. (7 pylons / 2 = 3.5). Rounding down to three make three ranks. Before it was rank 83. Now it counts as rank 84, 85 and 86.

Yling Bridge has three pylons and looks like one and a half ordinary bridge. No change. Najro (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Several bridges for example Rama VIII Bridge have only one pylon and looks like a half bridge, having no "full" span, only two "side" spans. The longest "side" span counts as the main span). Najro (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not do it this way and suggest changing it back. This is a list of cable-stay bridges by length of main (or longest) span. The introductory information at the top of the list states pretty directly that this list does not try to address or rank multi-span cable-stay bridges.

(Anyone wishing to weigh-in on this may want to read the discussion at Talk:Cable-stayed bridge#Longest in world as that pertains to this matter.)

I am not sure how you came to determine that only ever other span would count to be in the list. It should not matter how the Millau Bridge "looks" to a lay person. It should matter if it a separate bridge.

If you look at the List of longest suspension bridge spans, you will see that the west span of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge is listed twice. While I would not have done it this way myself, the article on the bridge supports this by explaining that "the western crossing, from San Francisco to (Yerba Buena) island, consists of two suspension bridges end-to-end with an anchorage" between.

To say this another way, unless there is a physical detachment (expansion joint), then it is one bridge and (in my opinion) only deserves one place on this list of longest main spans. (Bridge inventory and inspection systems would support this "one bridge" statement.)

By your logic, the Ting Kau Bridge is 1.5 bridges (three pylons divided by two). So even though it is a "more than three span" cable-stay, it would not be worthy of two spots on the ranking list (twenty five and thirty five at 475 m and 448 m respectively).

Similarly,I am not sure that I understand why a cable-stay bridge with only pylon means that it is only half of a bridge. An unsupported length is a span and it should not matter that the cables come from only one tower.

The comparision of each bridge to the typical two-pylon configuration before determining the number of entries into the list seems to me to be very subjective. Since one of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability, and this subjectivity would call that into question.

I support a second list (added to this page or on a new page) that would rank bridges by "total length of spans supported by stay cables." This would appropriately (and objectively) rank all bridges that have more than two towers. - SCgatorFan (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scgatorfan. Ranking by main span length is fully comparable, even for multispan bridges. Anyway add second table (or more column in main table) with credible and comparable figure to deal with multispan is possible, let´s discuss what figure that will be. Maybe something like spans legth (1680 m for RA) or something like cable-stayed deck (2252 m for RA), although it may be difficult to found these figures for some chinese bridges. --Jklamo (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my method was quick and only very approximate but I thought that a bridge like Rio-Antirio would be better represented on the list if it got two rank positions. But of course adding a new column "Length of cable-stayed deck" would be far more accurate. The number would be 2252 m for RA. And I consider San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge being two suspension bridges to be listed twice, because an anchor is found at the ends of the suspension bridge type, not in the middle. So if there is any cable-stayed bridge that in a similar way has an anchor interrupting the cable-stayed deck, I would consider it being two different cable-stayed decks, to be listed twice. The anchor prevents wind vibrations to be transferred from one deck to another. About expansion joints, I would not be surpriced if a long bridge like RA has more than two, but here I still consider it being the same deck.

Adding "Length of cable-stayed deck" introduces a kind of redundancy in the table because I would guess the cable-stayed deck is about double the length of the main span for a typical two-pylon bridge. The number of bridges that deviates from this formula are probably not many. One could also introduce a new column "Notes", with some fast (and somewhat messy) facts like

• length of cable-stayed deck (if not 2x main span)
• number of pylons (if not 2)
• height of highest pylon (if exceptional)
• height of deck above ground (if exceptional)
• ...

Or adding a second list to this page with the top 20 longest cable-stayed decks (Hard to make correct. Is probably same amout of work as making a whole new column). I dont know which is best. Najro (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support a second (and short) list, say a "top ten". It will be hard to exactly determine the sable-supported length on many smaller cable-stayed bridges (see my comment below in title change). - SCgatorFan (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

New reference that shows bridge configurations

Najro asks above "are there really any more bridges than (the Kap Shui Mun Bridge) creating problems (when calculating a total length because of columns in the side/back spans)?"

Well, YES! I found this reference (Bridges (in German) by Sven Ewert). Take a look at pages 168 to 170 and you will see graphics for many of the bridges that are at the top of this list. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, there appears to be several bridges that have columns supporting the side spans (only p169 is shown). In the section List of largest cable-stayed bridges#Longest cable-stayed decks I selected a definition of cable-stayed deck length, that do not include the part of the side-span that are supported by columns. By having a definition, the problems are gone. Najro (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed page move / title change

I see that List of largest suspension bridges was moved to List of longest suspension bridge spans about a year ago. Would it make sense to move List of largest cable-stayed bridges to List of longest cable-stayed bridge spans to be parallel/compatible? - SCgatorFan (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If a new column is added to the list the bridges are actually ranked in two different ways, span and cable-stayed deck, because when the reader presses the sorting button in column "Length of cable-stayed deck", the bridges get listed in that order instead of longest main span. But there will be no ranking numbers for cable-stayed deck, if one wants to know the exact rank of a particular bridge one has to count the preceeding rows manually. (There seems to be no way of making a column unaffected by sorting, Help:Sorting#Static column is barely working). Najro (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to remember that a list like this will be frquently used as a reference by readers of primary/elementary school age. The title, the opening paragraph and the list need to be clear and concise about the information presented.

Also, the clear span measurement is easy to make, readily verifiable, and relatively undisputable. The "Length of cable-stayed deck" can be subject to more interpretation because of the many varieties of designs. Based on the description, I would look to include back (or side) spans in the calculation because they are cable-supported. I don't think you discount the back span because of single-pylon bridges like the Provencher Bridge (Winnipeg) or other bridges where the back span is also needed to bridge over a separate road, rail or waterway.

So then what do you do for a bridge like the Kap Shui Mun Bridge where the back spans have a set of columns at their mid-point. These back spans then become only partially cable-supported. Are they included in the length of cable-stayed deck or not? This would be a matter of opinion, something we should stay away from. - SCgatorFan (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, include the side span. By "Length of cable-stayed deck" I mean side+main+side span for the typical two-pylon bridge.

I consider Kap Shui Mun having one long deck of 590 m (80+430+80) and two short decks of 80 m each, to be listed in three rows in the table (if the 80 m spans were not too short for the table anyway). This is because the columns stabilises the back spans, being a kind of anchor, so the two 80 m parts of the back span (dynamically) disconnects so much from each other they could be regarded as separate decks. This is maybe not a correct scientfic explanation, but I think the design of the bridge would have been more difficult if the columns had been omitted.

If changing the new column (or top 10 list) name to "Total length of cable-stayed decks" , the Kap Shui Mun becomes 750 m (80+80+430+80+80) but I think this figure is less interesting in a cable-stayed-bridge context because it is more difficult to build a long deck than several shorter decks in a row of the same total length. Najro (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be noted separated from the table that Kap Shui Mun have been (subjectively) interpreted to have a deck of 590 m. Are there really any more bridges than this one creating problems? Najro (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the other side could be argued just as easily. The outer 80 m spans of the Kap Shui Mun would have to be much shorter if they were not receiving support from the stays.

I am only familiar with a handful of the bridges on this list of the 117 longest and was able to point out an example where there is subjectivity in total cable-supported length. I have no idea how many others on the list might have be debatable and therefore question why it is as simple as you say.

This is the same reason why the article List of bridges by length has a big disclaimer at the top that basically says, "Hey, we are not really sure of these numbers. We don't know where the measurement starts; we don't know where it ends. In fact, some of these numbers are just plain guesses."

It sounds to me that you are proposing a column on this list that will require the same disclaimer once future editors add or edit information. - SCgatorFan (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that with suspension bridges case was different, multispan bridges were not problem in the list. I think it is better to list bridges than spans (and it is easiest way to deal with multi-span ones). Anyway i will not oppose to change article way to someone like "List of cable-stayed with the longest spans" or "List of cable-stayed bridges by length of main span", although i found these names too long and detailed and prefer to describe methods and scope of the list in the article lead rather than in the article name. --Jklamo (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The choice of name should be based on the sourcing of this list. In the case of List of longest suspension bridge spans, all the the original reference sources -- the cited lists that ranked those bridges -- used the main span. All the citations for the individual spans list the length of the main spans. If anyone can produce a list that ranks these cable stayed bridges by the total length of suspension, I'd say go for it. I tried to do something similar for suspension bridges, but I could not find such a ranking and ultimately decided to remove the section that had total suspension because it was unsourced (it was basically my own original research). If there is no reliable source for ranking cable stayed bridges by total suspension, then it would likely be original research to do so here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Russky Bridge

Anybody know for certain whether this bridge is going to be a suspension bridge or cable-stayed? I've found citations for both. this one from 2006 says cable stayed. this one from 2007 shows and discusses a suspension bridge. This one from this year says suspension but has a picture that looks like a cable-stayed bridge. This recent NY times article says "suspension bridge". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem -> Ranking future bridges by length

In recent months, the section of the article discussing cable-stayed bridges that are not yet open (under construction, being designed, and being planned) has been changed from a list which was primarily sorted by anticipated opening date to a list ranked by main span length. I think that creating this list has inherent issues about the accuracy of the information (and may not follow the intent of WP:CRYSTAL).
For instance, the Fehmarn Belt bridge is ranked with a main span length of 724 meters and a scheduled opening of 2018. This bridge is so early in the planning phase that there is no certainty in the length of the main span. The official website states "the length of the main bridge’s navigation span has yet to be determined." So how is it that we can rank this bridge by main span length.
I think this section should return to a sorting by anticipated opening date and does not need to be sortable by other columns. This section should also indicate what phase the project is in: construction, design or planning. This would ensure that readers can clearly see which information has the most chance of changing. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bandra-Worli Sea Link of India should be removed from list

Its main span is not 600m according to the definition here. This bridge has one major single pylon with 250m side spans and another two smaller pylons with smaller main span of 150m. Many other bridges have longer spans than this one. see picture

http://www.goiit.com/upload/2009/8/27/a69f92745b59ebfae1ee047ae714a4e5_1442343.jpg

http://www.makli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bandra-worli-sea-link-pictures2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalhuo (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Using link numbering for rank numbers

I don't think this is proper use of the MediaWiki feature. I know it relieves editors of having to manually update the rankings and bother with the exact correct number, but the ranking is the main piece of information here and should be specifically printed out. The current configuration will break every time an unnamed external link is placed anywhere in the page, just as the second table is now. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That is right, but really changing 100+ rankings in a case of adding one bridge would be extremly annoying for editors. Keeping eye on unnamed external links in references is much easier. --Jklamo (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Junshan Bridge.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Junshan Bridge.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ehuang Changjiang Bridge.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ehuang Changjiang Bridge.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of Bridges

Should the list be maintained at a certain length i.e. 100 or 50 bridges? I see above some were cut out a few years ago. Would this be done in order of longest span? The article at the moment is unnecessarily longShakyIsles (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This list loses accuracy probably below 50. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I did cut-off few years ago. Before that article has 39 kb and 107 items (+tens hidden), after 31 kb and 103 items. Now we have 140 items and 47 kb, so for sure it is a time for another cut-off. But i will preffer length-based (350 or 300 m) cut rather then rank-based. --Jklamo (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How about 450m which coincedently leaves 50 bridges. The other thing to note though is this will leave out some notable bridges with shorter longest spans such as milau viaduct longest total, anzac bridge longest in Austulasia, + Others maybe historical longest etc. Maybe a notable section? ShakyIsles (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Any others for the notable section? ShakyIsles (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing 2 bridges

I have removed from this list two bridges, because they main spans are less then 400 metres - it can be measured on satellite images of Google or Bing. This are Golden Horn Metro Bridge and Zakim Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.226.210.51 (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

La Pepa Bridge

Please, move La Pepa Bridge from the list of under construction bridges because it was opened a month ago. By the way, would be possible that the list had auto-sort? Stagiraswarrior (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Port Mann Bridge reference wrong

Reference 69 says the main span length is 570 m, while the article and most other references agree it is only 470 m, e.g., http://www.tylin.com/en/projects/port_mann_bridgehighway_1_project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.224.238 (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Tagging the timeline section for potential original research

I have some concerns regarding the timeline section (listing longest cable-stayed span as far back as 1871). Here are a couple of my reasons for questioning this list prior to the modern era of cable-stayed construction.

(1) The list currently starts with the Redheugh Bridge#The first crossing. I cannot find a reference that this is the first-ever cable-stayed bridge. Actually, page 7 of this scholarly reference states that the oldest known attempt at a cable-stayed bridge was 1784. This is about 100-years before the Redheugh bridge. From a picture I found of the original Redheugh bridge, I would consider it primarily a truss bridge with cable-assisted stiffening and support.

(2) Bridges (especially pre-modern cable-supported bridges) should not be visually categorized. A bridge may appear as a modern cable-stayed bridge, but only close inspection and engineering analysis can make that determination. The disagreement of typing the Bluff Dale Suspension Bridge is a good example. Two reliable, scholarly references analyze the bridge. From both references, it is clear that the bridge uses cables that extend between anchorages across the tower tops and then along the deck. For a layperson, these five cables appear to be stay cables. They go from the tower to a point on the deck in a fan arrangement. But the five cables are actually continuous across the main span, running at the deck level. Delony, et al in the HAER report label these cables as "continuous suspension cables," while Buonopane & Brown in their paper label the same cables as "continuous stay cables". Who is correct?

I believe that we should be able to present scholarly references for claims made about bridges. This is only an examination of a few of the oldest bridges on the timeline. However, it is enough for me want to tag the section with Template:Original research section. I'm starting with adding text that the list may be incomplete. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)