Talk:Sky Ride

The following material was stashed in the body of the article, commented out. As the original author of this article, I put it there thinking I'd like to try to make use of it later. Since that doesn't seem to be common practice, (someone just deleted it and I had to fish it out of the history) I'm bringing it here so it does not get lost/forgotten:

Artistically enhanced photograph of the Century of Progress world's fair, with the Sky Ride bridge spanning the exposition area

.

a link to the location

(was Meigs field for a while ... now being redeveloped after Mayor Daley had Meigs Field bulldozed)

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.861954,-87.605066&spn=0.024078,0.040851&hl=en

Patent details

I have a family heirloom, a U.S.Patent granted to William Lindsay Hamilton, his heirs relating to "Ropeways and the like". I understand that William Hamilton designed the Transporter Bridge. The Patent number is 1501333 and was granted in Washington on 15th July, 1924

Signed

Archie Hamilton Glasgow, Scotland, U.K 81.102.38.183 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of transporter bridge classification

I propose that the reference to "transporter bridge" in the first paragraph of the article be changed to "aerial tramway" and that the second paragraph be deleted. While the Sky Ride has been identified as a transporter bridge in a number of verifiable sources, such as (and perhaps most notably) Structurae, it is clearly not a transporter bridge but is instead an aerial tramway. The Sky Ride violates the most basic concept of a transporter bridge, the desire to transport passengers, vehicles, and cargo at the grade of the surrounding terrain without building a bridge deck at grade, in order to leave the bridged waterway unobstructed. This is accomplished by a rigid elevated superstructure carrying a rolling truck which in turn supports a gondola which is, by cables or less often by a rigid structure, suspended back down to grade level. In the Sky Ride, the gondolas are (a) at the level of the superstructure, not at grade, (b) are attached directly to, not suspended from, the rolling trucks, and (c) passengers ascend to the superstructure level by elevators. One of the sources cited by the article, niederelbe.de (more properly, Die Welt der Schwebefähren), clearly says, albeit in German, that the Sky Ride is not a transporter bridge, but is instead a "cable car." Some close-up photos of the Sky Ride gondolas and cable system are available at www.worldfairs.info.TransporterMan (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to dig up the research I did way back when but I think there are sources that characterize it as a transporter bridge. I can't argue with your criteria based analysis, if you posit the assumptions, it's correct, but I do wonder where you got the criteria from? ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Found it: [1], it's from Structurae, which I consider pretty reliable (although I'm not sure how reliable others consider it) . In thinking about this more, it seems your argument is based on conveyance grade level as the defining feature of transporter bridge. I'm not sure I agree with that one feature being the defining feature, and Sky Ride seems to hit the rest well enough. I'm also not clear I'd call it an aerial tram. Perhaps the thing to do is teach the controversy, point out what different sources call it and leave it to the reader to conclude? ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How about John Alexander Low Waddell, "The only excuse for the existence of this type of structure is that its construction is permissible at certain locations where no low-level bridge would be allowed, and where a high-level structure would be unsatisfactory for the crossing traffic." Economics of bridgework: a sequel to Bridge engineering (at Google Books) and additional discussion at that source and at Waddell's Bridge Engineering, and also to the same effect, The Builder, Vol. 68, June 18, 1904 which notes that the gondola is hung at the level of the river banks. The credibility of Structurae is in doubt when it identifies the "Structural Type" as a "Cable-stayed bridge deck truss" when there's no deck truss present.TransporterMan (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Per aerial tramway an AT differs from a gondola lift (though there's considerable sloppy use of both terms and the term "cable car") by the gondolas on an AT rolling along a fixed cable by being pulled by a second cable versus the gondolas on a GL riding on a single moving cable. I assert no claim that that distinction is correct, but only that it is the position already taken in Wikipedia. The gondolas on the Sky Ride rolled along a fixed cable.TransporterMan (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Accounts of the bridge differ. Some illustrations show girders of a truss, while others show only cable stays but the "rocket cars" by many/most accounts, ride on rails, not cables. Steinman, the designer of the bridge, of course would know what was built, but he's been dead a long time. If the cars ride on rails, it's not an aerial tramway. Or a gondola lift. With no disrespect to Waddell, dead even longer than Steinman, he's giving a justification for why one uses a transporter bridge to effect a crossing at grade, rather than a definition of one. I have to wonder, why exactly does this matter? This oddball construction is certainly closer to a transporter bridge than to anything else, and there are many sources that cite it as "one of only two transporter bridges ever built in the US". ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That it's not a truss can be clearly seen at worldfairs.free.fr, especially in the second and third images. As to the reason that it matters, it's simply a matter of someone's mistake being perpetuated. In the grand scheme of things, however, I'm not sure that this or anything about transporter bridges matters other than as a Goldbergian historical curiosity of interest only to bridge geeks and lovers of Big Steel Things such as steel truss bridges and steam locomotives (like me). In any event, I'm ready to drop the stick and let others weigh in. TransporterMan (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Those pics are amazing, I had not found them at the time I was doing my original research. They should be referenced from the article. I wonder where they came from. I agree with you that they clearly show that the "truss" is really just an arrangement of cables (which is what most sources say)... the image in the article where it looks thicker is no doubt a retouch job. They also seem to show the cars travel on cables (although exactly how isn't quite clear) rather than suspended rails, at least that's my WP:OR interpretation :). Thanks for digging that ref up! ... the PM ref below though speaks of rails. So I don't know. Letting others weigh in seems prudent. Another possibility is to add it to the aerial tram category but leave it in the transporter bridge category, and discuss in the article how it has aspects of both. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This should remain listed as a transporter bridge. Please see page 666 in Popular Mechanics Vol 59 No. 5 (May 1933). This article and the associated illustration clearly discuss that the Sky Ride is intended as a model for future bridges. Quoting page 669: "If the cables were enlarged, the elevators replaced by larger lifts, ... and the rocket cars were designed to accomodate vehicles, the entire system would become an aerial ferry ... capable of carrying loaded trucks and automobiles." - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps the article can be corrected to be more along the lines of the Popular Science azrticle. "The Sky ride functioned as an amusement ride for the world's fair, but was presented as a model for future transporter bridges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PennySpender1983 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 11 November 2009

Not a bad approach... the article could use modernization, conversion to inline cites and the like and this could be done at the same time, if someone were so inclined. ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Popular Mechanics article proposed a new use for this type of construction doesn't convert it from a aerial tramway to a transporter bridge. You can load up a passenger car with household goods to move them from one home to another, but that doesn't make the car a moving van. The 1933 article never calls the Sky Ride a "transporter bridge," and a prior Popular Mechanics Vol. 37 No. 1 Pg. 60 Jan. 1922 shows that the editors of Popular Mechanics knew the difference: the 1922 article, in describing the Newport Transporter Bridge, calls it a "suspended ferry" and says that, "On account of the steepness of the banks, the great rise and fall of the tides, the length of the span, and the height of headway needed, any ordinary kind of bridge was impracticable, and therefore this special kind, called a 'transporter bridge,' was created." (Emphasis added.) Perhaps the best compromise and compliance with WP:NPOV would be to merely recognize the conflict of opinions, citing Structurae on the one hand and Die Welt der Schwebefähren on the other. TransporterMan (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Teach the controversy. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are sources that describe it as both, so the article should describe it as both. However, I would have to think that if the Popular Science article had come true and larger versions were built that carried vehicles, our German source would not be calling this a cable car. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Draft: Add a new paragraph immediately following the second paragraph and just above the Contents box which would read (without italics):

Though frequently identified as a transporter bridge <ref>Structurae</ref>, some contend that the Sky Ride was not a transporter bridge but an aerial cable car <ref>Die Welt der Schwebefähren (in German)</ref>.

This made sense to me so I've incorporated it into the article where you suggested. I converted the cites slightly. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

When google translates the page for me, it says (near the top left) "also a cable car." Near the bottom, the text near the bottom does not translate clearly. Sentences are incomplete where it asserts (but does not clearly state) that it is not a transporter bridge. Do you know of a better translation site than google?
Also, I consider the Engineering News-Record article and the book co-authored by the engineer who designed it, both published and scholarly, to be much more reliable sources than this page. So While we should change the article to describe both in the lead section, I don't think this is such a big controversy that it needs to be in the lead; place it lower in the article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Lar, if you have some additional "sources that cite it as 'one of only two transporter bridges ever built in the US'" we could cite them here as well. (That's not a challenge, BTW, just a suggestion.) I'm going to go ahead boldly and add an external link to the picture page. TransporterMan (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to dig those up. IF they even exist. It's been a long time since I worked on this and it's possible that I just synthesized it (it's allowable to do counting synthesis IF your facts are in order :) ) rather than found it somewhere. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

		I'm a Nitwit
		TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) admits an act of WikiIdiocy.

In specific, for boldly adding a link to the pictures when Lar had already added one. D'oh! TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re the external link, there's also a very good collection of detailed images at SAIC (Search Result on "Sky Ride Image"), but they're non-free images and I don't know how, if it's possible at all, to link to the search result page without violating #9 of WP:ELNO, whereas linking to the individual image pages would seem to violate #3 of WP:ELPOINTS. TransporterMan (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's allowable to link to them. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref for Transporter bridge - Here is a reference for transporter bridge. It's only a snippet view in Google books, but it's enough to show that a reliable secondary source called it a transporter bridge. Engineering News-Record Feb 8, 1934. Quote: "Successful construction and operation of the Skyride transporter bridge at the Century of Progress was a tribute to model testing work, which formed a conspicuous part of the design procedure." - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Good find, PennySpender. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another - Here is where Steinman calls it a transporter bridge. The Long Crossing page 100. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, for the article cleanup and inclusions. I think this is done. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Another time around

I have found the smoking gun and it has shot me. I am reverting the edit made by Lar to insert the language which I requested. As it turns out, I was right that the Sky Ride was a aerial tramway, but I was wrong, too, in that it is both an aerial tramway and a transporter bridge. I have now found two or three authoritative references, written during the heyday of transporter bridges, which clearly indicate that some, or all, aerial tramways were considered to be transporter bridges. They are:

• Transporter Bridges by Henry Grattan Tyrrell, 1912, p. 5. The author of this monograph, which is only about transporter bridges, says without further comment, "During the year 1894, two important passenger cableways were erected, one near Knoxville, Tennessee, and the other at Brighton Dyke [sic], England, the car on the former one moving on a cable with steep incline." He goes on to say that the English one is the one at Devil's Dyke designed by W.J. Brewer. Photos of that cableway can be seen here and here, and clearly show it to be an aerial tramway. The Knoxville one is fully described in American Engineer and Railroad Journal, 1894, Vol. 68, p. 283 (and illustrated on p. 282) and is clearly an aerial tramway. (It must be also noted, however, that Tyrrell later, at page 9, after describing the Portugalete, Bizerta, Rouen, Nantes, and Marselle classic-style transporter bridges, says, "up to this time, transporter bridges had not been used in America ... but in 1905, the first and only one on this side of the Atlantic, was completed, over the ship canal from Lake Avenue, Duluth, to Minnesota Point" (emphasis added) thus implying that the Knoxville cableway was not a transporter bridge [see additional discussion below].) On page 11 the author also describes and includes a sketch for a proposed design for a "modified type of transporter bridge" which is clearly an aerial tramway (and one on which, I would hope, they would distribute brown pants at the beginning of the ride).
• Bridge Engineering, Volume 1, by John Alexander Low Waddell, 1916, p. 671 in his section on transporter bridges has a list of "other bridges of this type" and includes in that list, a reference to a "Cableway at Brighton, England," obviously being the Devil's Dyke cableway described above.
• The Theory and Practice of Bridge Construction by Morgan William Davies, 1908, p. 433 has a sketch of an aerial tramway and says that it "represents in a crude form the principle of the transporter bridge."

It is thus clear that contemporary sources clearly considered at least some aerial tramways to be transporter bridges. What's not clear at this remove is whether they considered all, or just some, aerial tramways to be transporter bridges. It's not that aerial tramways were new or novel at this time (see this history). A clue might be found in Tyrrell's comment that the car on the Knoxville cableway moved at a steep incline. It may be that the engineers and architects of the day only considered near-horizontal aerial tramways, such as that at Devil's Dyke, as transporter bridges, but considered those which scaled heights to be a structure type unto themselves. (As can be seen from the American Engineer and Railroad Journal description, the fact that the Knoxville cableway not only scaled a height but also served to cross a river probably added to its ambiguity.)

Whatever the explanation, it is indisputably clear that the architects and engineers of the time considered some aerial tramways to be transporter bridges. I and Die Welt der Schwebefähren are, therefore, clearly wrong about the Sky Ride not being a transporter bridge and I am boldly reverting Lar's inclusion of the language I previously requested because it is misleading. I apologize to Lar and ¢Spender1983 for the trouble I've put them to (and also for this talk page edit being non-concise). TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been an interesting discussion, at the very least, and therefore enjoyable to me. I have been thinking that the lead should change to:

The Sky Ride was an attraction built for the Century of Progress Exposition (or World's Fair) in Chicago, Illinois (located near what became Meigs Field) in 1933. It was a transporter bridge (or aerial tramway), designed by the bridge engineering firm Robinson & Steinman, that ferried people across the lagoon in the center of the fair. It was demolished after carrying X,XXX,XXX riders during the run of the fair. The Sky Ride had an 1,850-foot (564 m) span and two XXX-feet tall towers, making it the most prominent structure at the fair. Suspended from the span, 215 feet (66 m) above the ground, were rocket-shaped cars, each carrying 36 passengers.

Text about the number of transporter bridges in the US can then be moved to the history section. I think this is more engaging than the current lead. It also explains why the article is in both the amusement ride category as well as the transporter bridge category. Thoughts? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought I tried to say that I'm Ok with the text added by me, the thing DOES have aspects of aerial trams, but I like your wording even better. No one needs to feel badly about this episode, the article is better now than it was before due to us all digging around and adding bits we found. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So did you make that change or no? I think that's a great new lead. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Moved the extra text from the lead (along with some other text) to a new section called Design. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)