Talk:The Iron Bridge/Archive 1

Comment

This article needs to give a better sense of the scale of this bridge. For while "it was the first bridge of its size to be made out of cast iron," the article never mentions what the span of the bridge is, and the current picture doesn't have any contextual clues to give hints at its size. --Dantheox 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent point: I will insert some dimensions etc Peterlewis 05:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Ironbridge

It seems that at one point these were one article, and I have to say it's confusing to find them separated. Ironbridge really doesn't contain any information beyond the bridge itself, and it's odd to see what looks like the same article listed twice in categories. –Ryan McDaniel 07:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Better to sort the information out into one article about the settlement of Ironbridge and another article, this one, for the actual bridge itself. Therefore I suggest no merge. David 19:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Iron Bridge is an iconic symbol of the industrial revolution, and deserves an article of its own. Ironbridge is an urban village that takes its name from the bridge. Peterkingiron 21:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The general consensus over on Ironbridge seems to be that we don't merge the articles again. Do you think it's safe to remove the merge tags and maybe add an expand tag or something? Oggy 14:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Industrial archaeology

Is the bridge itself the archaeological site, or is it Coalbrookdale round the corner? Btw, didn't know of Wiki when I was last there, so didn't pick up ref materials, but if you can get at such, it would be amazing to have stuff on the recently excavated blast furnaces, which as I remember show the expansions Darby III had to make in order to cast the bridge pieces. I practically fell on my knees before it... JackyR 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole area is an archaeological site, and the bridge itself gave the name to an archaeological award in the past. Noisy | Talk 11:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the bridge is a bridge and the town is a town, just sharing the same name, both entirely different things. There is no reason to merge these two articles in my opinion, as they share only the name. Segafreak2 | Talk 23:47, 04 April 2006 (GMT)

Iconic symbol

The blast furnaces have been excavated for some time, surely? The bridge is an icon but was grossly over-designed (because they didn't test or didn't appreciate loads and stresses). If you look closely, it is badly cracked in over 70 places (according to English Heritage) yet still stands. That must mean that much of the structure is redundant. Compare it with the very graceful bridge at Coalport 2 miles downstream which still takes traffic and you will instantly see how design could succeed with minimal cast iron. Telford's cast iron bridges are also very elegant, and many are still well used such as the Waterloo bridge at Bettws-y-coed. The full story is told in Cossans recent book. Peterlewis 20:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

question

Traffic was stopped from crossing the bridge in 1934, but tolls were still collected until 1950

How can tolls be collected if there wasn't any traffic? Something needs to be clarified.

Clarified. Noisy | Talk 10:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tolls

Traffic means vehicular traffic, not foot users, I suppose. Peterlewis 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Picky, picky, picky ... but a good point, so I've added 'vehicular'. Noisy | Talk 11:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Name of article

I don't want to get into any form of edit war here so I wish to ask the community, what should the name of this article be? As far as I'm aware, the bridge is known as The Iron Bridge. So shouldn't that be the article name, regardless of any naming conventions on Wikipedia? You're input would be much appreciated. Oggy 18:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Having re-read the naming conventions referenced in the edit summary it seems I was mistaken in my first post (The White House for example is named White House). I still feel the article name is far from ideal. Any ideas? Oggy 18:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The only realistic alternative to the present name (The Iron Bridge) is Iron Bridge, which is presently a disambiguation page that would need moving to Iron Bridge (disambiguation). IMHO "Iron Bridge" is too generic and too easily confused with Ironbridge. Thryduulf 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

importance

if this was the first bridge made of iron, and iron was the first metal available in large structural sizes/quantity, then wouldn't that make this the first 'significant' metal structure? the fact that it's a bridge isn't that significant and from what i know was actually intended as a demonstration piece, with a more significant impact on iron ships than bridges.

Asplace 13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm adding the WikiProject Bridges template and rating the article as of high importance. I hope I'm allowed to do that last part. - Denimadept (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the "of its size" wording at the top of the article is also misleading, as it could mean that a bridge almost as big had been built previously. I don't know of any previous iron bridge, so if there was one, presumably it was very small in comparison to this one, and of much less engineering significance. Salopian (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Eliminated "of its size", and am tempted to remove "cast" from "cast iron". As I understand it, no qualifiers are necessary for this bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the Luding Bridge, a suspension bridge built with iron chains in 1701, predate the start of construction of this bridge by 74 years? 67.86.73.252 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC). According to Nicolas Janberg's structurae page on the Luding Bridge it was constructed 1705-1706, but that was still 73 years before the 1779 completion of this Severn bridge. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, isn't that a bitch. Good point. My refs call this the first iron bridge, but it looks like maybe they were unaware of the Chinese example. - Denimadept (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that the Chinese bridge isn't entirely made of iron, but its structural members are certainly described that way. At least the chains are, anyway. - Denimadept (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the Luding Bridge is described as made of 13 iron chains with wooden planks lashed to the chains as the bridge deck surface (the planks were burned by either paraffin or kerosene during the Long March battle in 1935). The construction technique of the chains is not mentioned (cast, forged, or a combination). On the other hand the image Image:IronBridge2.JPG of the top of the Severn Iron Bridge implies that it too is made of a paving material other than iron (asphalt or concrete I'd guess). Like the Luding Bridge the Severn Iron Bridge also has stone masonry abutments. According to the List of Chinese inventions article iron suspension bridges may have been made in China as early as 600 A.D., and certainly by the 15th century (hence the Luding bridge does not represent the first such iron bridge, but may only be the oldest one still standing). By the way, the Battle of Iron bridge took place in 637 A.D. near an iron bridge in Antioch, Turkey that is no longer standing. Perhaps the second sentence of this article could be altered to read either: "It was the second oldest iron bridge still standing in the world (the Luding Bridge in China is older).", or it could adopt the phrasing used at the Ironbridge Gorge article and mention: "It is the the first iron bridge of its kind in the world." since it is an iron arch bridge not a suspension bridge type. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are all missing the point: this was the first cast iron bridge anywhere, and showed how the material could be used safely by designing its arches in compression. Wrought iron is older and no doubt was used in older bridges. A suspension bridge is not the same as an arch bridge!Peterlewis (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, say that in the article! It's not clear to anyone who is not aware of that. - Denimadept (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much to Peterlewis for explaining the specific conditions that pertain to the claim of worldwide originality for this bridge. 67.86.73.252 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the Construction

In the museum that was the toll house on the Broseley side is a reproduction of a watercolour by Elias Martin, which has come to light only in 1997 in Sweden, showing the Iron Bridge under construction. (It can be seen in the external link titled "How the bridge was built".) It would be great to get a pic of that in the article if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)