Talk:Medway Viaducts

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

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.

Highways: United Kingdom Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways 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.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

This article lacks references.

The bridge

Thought I would start a dedicated page for this bridge. Please can you help me expand it with info etc. When I have time i'll add lots too it!

Thanks--Screen42 21:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original M2 bridge (ie built for the first M2) has always been called the Medway viaduct, the new motoway bridge and CTRL rail bridge are just additional viaducts alongside the previous/existing one. Pickle 22:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good idea with the M2 and rail distinction. Pratj 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe this page should just come under a heading of 'bridges that cross the medway'--Screen42 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, i will do a seperate Rochester Bridge article Pratj 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its prehaps an idea to have one like thames crossing series in the long term, but thats a short term relastic goal Pickle 19:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a Rochester bridge article. i was surprised there was not 1 already. Pratj 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another small point, surely broadly speaking the River Medway runs south to north - thus the rail bridge is the southern one, the londonbound M2 the middle one and the coastbound M2 the northern one. that how i see it anyway, i suppose on a map they are angled NW to SE ...... Anyway really should get my camera out and take some photos of the bridges and the views from them, its simply stunning Pickle 06:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, they pretty much run north south. anyway, go take some pics. i could take some on my phone, they wont be brilliant but at a medium size they should be fine. i get a good view of them from the woods near where i live. Pratj 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge info box

I have added a bridge info box but there are some details I can't find - does anyone have them? Regan123 13:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO its a little messy because we're talking about 3 seperate bridges all known as the "medway viadcut" (and one of which has been rebuilt giving it 2 sets of figures) Pickle 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could create seperate boxes for the three bridges. This is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges recommended info box and whilst I am not a member of the project I do like the info. If we could get pictures of the three bridges then I would like to split it up. Regan123 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and get around to doing so, i only live (half the time) around the corner Pickle 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed bridge, never built?

Don't know if I dreamt this, but was their plans to build a huge viaduct across the Medway, when the Chatham Line was being built many years ago? I am sure I read this somewhere. The bridge would have gone into tunnel somewhere near Rochester. I think the cost prevented it ever being built. I could be wrong--Screen42 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your on there mate. An extensive reference site like kentrail.co.uk doesn't mention it at all. My understanding of local railway history is that the SER built the North Kent Line to Strood through the old Medway and Thames Canal. This was then extended southwards to Maidstone. LCDR built (as the East Kent Railway) from Dover and Ramsgate (but started at Faversham IIRC) to the SER line at Strood (hence North Kent junction). SER built their own branch to Chatham alongside the LCDR as a wrecking measure and managed to deny them running rights over their North Kent Line, thus the "Chatham Main Line" was built up to the ? railway at St Mary Cray (or was it Bromley South). Pickle 04:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might have dreamt that one!--Screen42 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new bridge over the Medway is proposed here: http://www.trenport.co.uk + http://www.trenport.co.uk/images/master_plan.gif + http://www.trenport.co.uk/new_bridge.php

Screen42 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes the Peter's Pit development, my guess would be that wouldn't be huge (more like Aylsford) as big boats only go as far as the cement works at Halling/Cuxton Pickle 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a name change for this article

I Think we should change the title of this page to 'Medway Bridges' This is the name used on the Ordance Survey Maps for the area.--Screen42 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While i accept the OS maps of the area to call it the "Medway bridges", a Google check shows the "Medway viaduct" is its actual name - see http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22medway+viaduct%22&meta= . "Medway bridges" IMHO sounds like a category page for all bridge over the medway.... Pickle 06:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for clean up

Can anyone tell me why? ClemRutter (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed records removal

Cant see why my recent edit was undone. The article is about the bridges. The speed record is relevant as it occurred on the bridge. The Paris to London record section is irrelevant as it was completed over the entire line. Anyone want to discuss?Screen42 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Screen42, thank you for your edits. Everything on Wikipedia should be cited (WP:CITE) using a reliable source (WP:RS). The diff for the edit in question is here[1]. This edit removed a citation

<ref name="recordrun">{{cite news |url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2162674,00.html |title= 205mph but still three minutes late|accessdate= 2007-09-05|date= 2007-07-05|publisher= The Guardian | location=London | first=Patrick | last=Barkham}}</ref>

. This citation states, "Neil Meare, who took the train up to 200mph over the Medway viaduct"—this is the basis of the paragraph in the article, and the article does not state more than this. Thusly the result of the edit was to remove a reliable, cited statement, and instead to replace it with an uncited claim. This is counter to the general activity of Wikipedia, which is to reflect reliably published works. May I also draw your attention to WP:3RR/WP:BRD, and to WP:MOSDATE (the allowed date formats for Wikipedia). Once again, thank you for getting involved and wanting to help with improving the articles on Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have finished sorting this page out. If someone could maybe sort out the reference for me I would be grateful. Not edited much on here for a while. So learning it all again. Screen42 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Screen42, thank you for posting here on the Talk page. I saw the additional edits[2] and composed a further query about the other references being removed. Thank you for adjusting the date formatting. Comparing Old revision of Medway Viaducts#References (before) with Old revision of Medway Viaducts#References (after) the formatted citation sources are no longer visible. Do you think it would be appropriate to restore the previously—cited—material? I would appreciate your guidance. If the problems are relating to missing or lacking functionality in the beta editor (the "VisualEditor"), have you tried the Wikitext source editor that you will have used previously? —Sladen (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sladen, I will try and find citations for the points of reference this week. Many of the facts are from personal knowledege of the area and bridges. The speed record is from the details on the photo of the plaque.Screen42 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This falls under original research (WP:OR). Something that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. To clarify, the query above is about how "it would be appropriate to restore the previously—cited—material?" A reverted-revert is such a rare occurrence, that I am somewhat hesitant to attempt further edits without gaining confirmation. —Sladen (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished updating this page. I have put in references. It looks and reads much better Screen42 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I am asking about the cited material and accompanying references, that were removed in the earlier edits, as linked above. You must have felt extremely strongly in order to perform revert of a revert. This is the reason I am keen to gain your thoughts about the cited material and reliable references removed. Please, address this. —Sladen (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text about the Paris to London because it was not relevant to the article. I also added a picture of the replacement fact which supported the text I had newly entered. I have now added a new link for this fact.Screen42 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, the most recent edit added a reference[3] that does not even contain the words "Medway", nor "Viaduct". It appears that the offered reference has little to do with the Medway Viaducts. While the earlier statements and references that explicitly discussed the Medway viaduct have been removed. Removing relevant statements and relevant supporting citations, while then belatedly adding non-relevant ones, is unlikely to be in the interests of Wikipedia or our readers. —Sladen (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]