Jump to content

Talk:Severn Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merger / reorganisation

[edit]

The section "First Severn crossing" from the Severn crossing article should be merged into this article. The Severn crossing article should then be renamed Second Severn Crossing.

Reasons:

  • The term "First Severn crossing" is not normally used for the original bridge, it's just that when they built the new bridge, they were rather unimaginative and called it the "Second Severn Crossing".
  • It's unhelpful to have information about the original bridge split between two articles
  • I feel there's no need for a Severn crossing article, two articles about the two bridges, with links to each other, would suffice.

Note: it seems these articles have been moved about before without following the correct procedure, leading to confusing redirected talk pages etc. Any moves this time should be done using the correct methods. It will require an administrator to move the Severn crossing article back to Second Severn Crossing as the latter redirect page has been edited.

If anyone has any objections, please start a discussion below. JRawle (Talk) 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start by doing the initial merge, although possibly not "the right way" as I haven't touched any of the talk pages. Is there a smarter way to do it than just copying the text across and redirecting? Also, at present the Severn crossing page still remains. If someone else would like to fix that, please do. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits are fine if we are keeping a Severn crossing article. I still think some of the information (such as the poem, and details of pre-1966 crossings) could be moved from Severn crossing to the Severn Bridge article, and the former can become almost a disambiguation article.
Anyway, the articles are much better now. Thanks a lot for sorting it out! JRawle (Talk) 14:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England - Wales border

[edit]

I deleted the following inaccurate and confusing text from the lead:

Although the Severn Bridge can only be used for crossing between England and Wales, it is located wholly within England. This is because the "Welsh" end of the bridge itself is located above the Beachley peninsula, which modern boundaries place in England. The border with Wales bisects the Wye bridge, slightly further north along the route. The ancient Offa's Dyke placed the Beachley peninsula in Wales.

The article makes clear that the "Severn Bridge" as defined here includes the Wye Bridge - so the fact that it is the Wye bridge part of the structure which crosses the England-Wales border is not relevant - the entire structure does indeed cross from Wales to England (or vice versa). Also, the Beachley peninsula has in fact never been part of Wales, simply because neither England nor Wales existed at the time (up to about the 8th century) when the peninsula was indeed part of the Kingdom of Gwent (which is not the same as "Wales"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge type

[edit]

Ghmyrtle, I saw that you reverted my edits on this article and thought I should point you to some discussions on the verifiability of the bridge type in question. The following discussions question the validity of two terms (suspended deck bridge and suspended-deck suspension bridge) as names for a Suspension bridge.

This has been a heated dscussion (admittedly I have been the one pouring jet fuel on the fire). But the gist of the conversation is that no one has found a reliable source that defines suspended-deck suspension bridge. Since Bridge Engineering is such a technical topic, I have been scouring books and published technical papers to find this term. I have been unable to do so and, hence, I drew a line in the sand with the User that started these edits. If you would like, you can give some input at the location where the main discussion is taking place, here. Until this is resolved, I am of the opinion that it is inappropriate to put the term into individual bridge articles. Would you be in agreement with my reverting your edit while this takes place? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - I wasn't aware of the discussion, so apologise for reverting in haste. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources for the concept, and for the utility of distinguishing sub-types of "suspension bridge", the only question is the best name for it. Any of these edits, pushing one way or the other, are unhelpful at a time when such a debate is raging. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please locate and show me one of these sources. I have been searching and searching. Bridge engineering is a technical subject that has been published for over one hundred years. So I am searching high and low for a reliable, scholarly source that classifies suspension bridges as suspended-deck suspension bridges or just defines the term. The fact that people have kept right on saying "of course there are sources" yet never produce one caused me to be the one to pour the jet fuel on the fire of this debate. Any source you can locate can help calm my nerves on this matter. My thought on the edits was that it would be easier (for me at least) to unpopulate a category before it gets deleted, rather than after. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I start typing up lists of references, I'm probably going to stick them under Talk:Suspended_deck_bridge#Cleanup, for visibility.
We have little need to formally demonstrate the existence (with WP:RS) of {suspended-deck suspension bridges / "suspension bridges with catenaries"} as they're uncontroversially the "obvious" and well-recognised form. What's a more relevant need for sourcing is to demonstrate the facts that:
As to naming, then the most common name for this sub-group is "Cable suspension bridges", but that has two problems:
  • It refers to "cables", when the early examples used chains instead.
  • It's confusingly close to "cable-stayed", which isn't the same thing at all.
On the whole, I'd favour "catenary suspension bridges" which is defensible, precise and accurate, but tunnel-visioned Wikieditors will undoubtedly hate it if Google doesn't agree.
Mind you Suspended_deck_bridge is itself a classic piece of Wikifarce in that a broadly correct but imperfect name has now been pushed in entirely the wrong direction and we've generated a title that has gone from a neologism to an incorrect scope (there are many sorts of bridge with a suspended deck that aren't of this type (e.g. Sydney Harbour Bridge))
If you want books, then Chrimes, Mike (1991). Civil Engineering 1839-1889: A photographic history. ISBN 1-84015-008-4. has particularly good coverage of the unusual Victorian designs with trusses, also some early chain catenaries. Slightly later (when wire rope began to displace chain) there's a good book on the Swiss engineer Dufour, Peters, Tom F. (1987). Transitions in Engineering: Guillaume Henri Dufour and the Early 19th Century Cable Suspension Bridges. ISBN 3764319291.
Another book: Drewry, Charles Stewart (1832). A Memoir of Suspension Bridges.. Plate 1 (right at the back) also illustrates a very early cable-stayed bridge! Hadn't expected to see that in 1832. I haven't read the whole book yet, but it's online at Google Books, which is always helpful to readers. I was quite shocked yesterday when I looked up the ISBN for the Dufour book and saw how pricey my copy of it is now! It's a good book, but high prices are a problem in their use as "further reading" refs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice closures in December 2009?

[edit]

Per this edit, were both bridges again closed simultaneously due to ice in December? I first thought they were (on the day), but reverted my own edit shortly afterwards, as it seemed that the M48 had been re-opened before the M4, so they were never both closed simultaneously. The BBC ref added today is unclear - we know both closed, we know both closed on the same day, but was it ever so bad to close both together (i.e. cutting England off entirely). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges

[edit]

The article being about the whole crossing not just the suspension bridge component needs to be made clearer in the intro. Thoughts? Rsloch (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Suicides?

[edit]

The Wikipedia link that brought me to this page was saying that there were a lot of suicides from this bridge but this isn't even noted in the article. Unless this entry is written by the local Chamber of Commerce, I think this fact, if true, should be mentioned. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few, and one just recently (car driver, Second Severn Crossing). However I don't believe they're that common. It's a fair old walk to get there, even from Chepstow, and there are nearer high bridges to save the effort. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

50th anniversary

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the 50th anniversary, which was yesterday? The BBC has a page about the history and vintage cars. Their video about the history is only available for 28 days (& possibly only in UK).— Rod talk 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Severn 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tolls to be abolished?

[edit]

On this, as well as the Second Severn Crossing article, it only mentions that the toll charges are to be halved. But they don't mention that the government subsequently (in July) announced that they are to abolish the charge completely (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-40671900). Any chance of someone with better skills and knowledge being able to update this and the other article? Smoothy (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done
 Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 13:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name??

[edit]

Before I actually suggest a change in name, I thought I would ask what people thought as this was last discussed 11 years ago!

Surely this article should be called the "Severn Crossing" and as stated in the article the "Severn Bridge" is one of the four components of the crossing. I just think that the change would avoid any confusion.

I know there is a "Severn crossing" article but I would suggest that could be merged into "List of crossings of the River Severn" and maybe renamed "Crossings of the River Severn". Mark999 (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know and remember it has been called the Severn Bridge all of its existence. The term "crossing" is a recent devlopment in bridge naming. Per WP:Recentism we should keep the common name by which it has known for most of its existence. It was a revolutionary design in terms of deck profile and angled stay wires for stability and deserves to have its own article under the traditional name.Charles (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Charlesdrakew. We go with WP:COMMONNAME, and I believe that most sources still describe it as the Severn Bridge (even though it crosses the Wye as well). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with Charles. The term "Severn crossing" is how the newer M4 bridge is styled in most conversations. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard 12:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose COMMONNAME would favour Severn Bridge over Severn Crossing. I never see "Severn Crossing" in use as a term, only "Second Severn Crossing". In common use, it's usually the "new bridge", despite being over twenty years old. See https://www.severnbridge.co.uk where they use "Second Severn Crossing" and "Severn Bridge".
The name is also an example of synecdoche, as the "Severn Bridge" can refer to the suspension bridge section alone, or far more commonly as the entire crossing of the M48. But only real bridge anoraks know that the Severn Bridge only goes as far as England, not Wales. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not called the "Severn-Wye" bridge - it's always been two separate bridges. The only source I can find for a joint name easily is The Daily Express, and that's probably cribbed the name from this article. And as Andy says, the actual Severn Bridge runs between Aust and Beachley, both in Gloucestershire (broadly construed). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Severn 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) 21:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined hangers….

[edit]

…were hardly revolutionary in 1966, except, perhaps, for suspension bridges. Qwirkle (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the disputed statement. Dormskirk (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Severn_Bridge&oldid=1227381537"