![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chelsea Bridge and Grosvenor Bridge are next to each other. Why is one central and the other not? -- 88.110.189.21 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Some locks have public access footbridges that cross the entire river, most have only a footbridge that crosses the locks. If the rest of the river has a weir any footway the weir carries is usually "authorised persons only" and padlocked. At some locks even an "authorised person" has no way across since there is a further section of river beyond the weir, eg Shepperton lock.
So any implication that any lock is a possible "crossing of the River Thames" is not correct and any definition including such is not a helpful one.
( MichaelRD 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC))
A private crossing is still a crossing. The article is not called public crossings of the River Thames. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.66.152.206 (
talk)
16:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article states "downstream first" in the lead, but isn't the order of crossings as upstream first? Craigy ( talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Another proposed bridge, the Sustrans Thames Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge has not yet had its (proposed) position finalized, although it seems it would certainly be between the Greenwich foot tunnel and the Rotherhithe Tunnel. Worth keeping an eye on. Open4D ( talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in converting this article to use a table, with grid references, coordinates and hCard microformats, like the table at List of crossings of the River Severn? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a history of people removing non-publically accessable crossings. There is no justification for this. This is not a list of public crossings of the River Thames - it is a list of ALL crossings of the river thames. The Thames Tunnel used by the former East London Line is not currently accessable by the public so should that be removed also? No! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.152.206 ( talk) 16:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the list of former subdivisions that was added for the following reasons:
That said, a summary sentence at the beginning of the article such as "The River is currently the boundary between x, y, z and was the ancient boundary between a, b c" would probably satisfy this. I'll have a go at writing that. MRSC ( talk) 06:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
As an early contributor to this article, I was considerably distressed by the mess I found it in when I looked at it just now. Half the length of the river was tabulated, and half was the original listing. I have no problem with tabulation in principal, although to be truthful I think it looked better as a list. However if the editor who had decided to turn it into a tabulation had managed to finish the work, I would have left well alone.
But it is clearly insupportable to have an article in this state for three months with no clear prospect of it being sorted out. So I have taken the drastic step of reverting the article back to the state it was in before the tabulation started. I apologise to all the other editors whose work I have reverted in the process, but I couldn't see any other way of dealing with this. I will go through all the changes, and try and reintroduce them as appropriate. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that the following hatnote has been added and removed a couple of times today:
Given that List of Bridges in London redirects here, i.e. this is the only article about bridges in London, I believe the hatnote is appropriate. It would also avoid a disambiguation page with just two entries as London bridges is now. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Am I alone in finding it strange that the list includes certain cable crossings? There might be justification if the list included bridge heights, but it doesn't. I would also exclude cable tunnels, which come into the same category as (non-public) weir crossings that aren't included. I see no problem with including tunnels which don't currently have any public use - they may return, as with the Thames Tunnel - but let's not include proposed crossings, the list is too volatile. Chris55 ( talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Every lock on the navigable river has a weir across the main stream. There is a full river crossing at a lock only when the weir has a walkway across it that is deemed safe enough for public access. Examples of these can be seen in the pictures at Hambledon Lock, Benson Lock and Abingdon Lock. Most weir walkways are closed to public access and some weirs have no walkway at all. Crossing at the lock itself is usually across the lock gates, although I can think of Boulter's Lock and Romney Lock which have separate footbridges (but no weir access). So a crossing at a lock should be described as via the weir walkway rather a bridge. Regards Motmit ( talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The course of the Thames splits into different channels through Ashton Keynes. It is unclear which is the main channel, if indeed there is one. Large scale OS maps seem to indicate that the main channel heads north between Waterhay Bridge and High Bridge, and runs alongside the High Road to the north of the village. The channel that continues under High Bridge and Three Bridges becomes the Swill Brook, but it does connect to the Thames via another channel which joins it at Pike Corner. There are other channels that are making me even more confused. See
[1]
So are we correct to state that High Bridge and Three Bridges are Thames crossings? Or are all the bridges along the High Road (not currently mentioned in the article) Thames crossings - instead or also?
Bazonka (
talk)
18:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Radcot Bridge is listed as opening in 1787, yet the article for Radcot bridge states that it was last "largly" rebuilt just after the Wars of the Roses which ended in 1485. Why is it listed as opening nearly 300 years later?
Somehow, during the great tablification a couple of years ago, the Bakerloo line got out of sequence. It is in fact upstream/South of the Hungerford bridges, as seen in this plan drawing. It is also shown this way on Open Street Map, running from Northumberland Avenue to the northern edge of Jubilee Gardens. Google Maps shows something similar. I blame Harry Beck for the error, as it's always been shown the other way on the diagrammatic Tube Map. I've put it back where it belongs. -- rbrwr ± 10:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of crossings of the River Thames. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external%2FItem&sp=ZEmergency+Thames+Bridge&sp=238967&sp=XWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking for any feedback on my changes to List of crossings of the River Thames#London to Windsor where I am fetching relevant data from Wikidata instead of defining it locally. There is a handy link to the Wikidata item (click the pencil icon) if any data needs adding or changing. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
How does one edit the entry for Benson Lock in this section? The code is {{Wdtable row/bridge1|qid=Q4890269|notes= }}. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
|c3=
for column 3. Let me know if you need any assistance. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
12:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The opening paragraph lists one ford, but I can find no mention of it in the rest of the page. Since this page is already more than just a list, but includes some history I would expect to see a reference to fords in the past, perhaps why they are not relevent today or their replacement by bridges. IceDragon64 ( talk) 14:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC) ^ Have edited page. Am happy now. :)
There are several bare url refs in the tables that ought to be formatted, with a title and a date added to the url. One url is “access forbidden”, others are dead and cannot be marked as such or replaced with a live link. I tried to do this task, but I could not get at the bare url refs in the table itself. I am not sure why. I hope someone who knows where to find the refs can do the work. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 02:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I notice that the proposed KenEx - [2] Tunnel is not on the list of proposed crossings. Should it be? Abeorch ( talk) 12:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
There used be crossing between Erith and Rainham (Essex) by ferry. There is a plaque that marks the eight hundredth anniversary of the start of the Rainham to Erith and is one of the least known artifacts in Erith as very few locals are even aware that it that is there and was erected on the wall next to the wooden jetty adjacent to Erith Riverside Gardens back in 1999. The Pilgrim's Ferry began in the year 1199 and was used to allow people to cross the River Thames between Erith and Coldharbour Point in Rainham. There was an unsuccessful campaign back in 2010 / 2011 to try and get the ferry service restarted, as part of the "London Loop". The ferry last apparently ran on a regular daily basis back in 1854. Many years later Ford would run their own ferry until 2004 between Dagenham and Belvedere. It is a shame since the closest foot crossing is the Woolwich Foot Tunnel and the closest crossing by road is the Dartford Tunnel despite the fact the Erith pier and the Coldharbour Point Lighthouse can be seen from their sides of the River Thames. - 2A02:C7C:53C1:E00:998C:E4F2:A2FD:AE29 ( talk) 08:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chelsea Bridge and Grosvenor Bridge are next to each other. Why is one central and the other not? -- 88.110.189.21 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Some locks have public access footbridges that cross the entire river, most have only a footbridge that crosses the locks. If the rest of the river has a weir any footway the weir carries is usually "authorised persons only" and padlocked. At some locks even an "authorised person" has no way across since there is a further section of river beyond the weir, eg Shepperton lock.
So any implication that any lock is a possible "crossing of the River Thames" is not correct and any definition including such is not a helpful one.
( MichaelRD 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC))
A private crossing is still a crossing. The article is not called public crossings of the River Thames. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.66.152.206 (
talk)
16:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article states "downstream first" in the lead, but isn't the order of crossings as upstream first? Craigy ( talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Another proposed bridge, the Sustrans Thames Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge has not yet had its (proposed) position finalized, although it seems it would certainly be between the Greenwich foot tunnel and the Rotherhithe Tunnel. Worth keeping an eye on. Open4D ( talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in converting this article to use a table, with grid references, coordinates and hCard microformats, like the table at List of crossings of the River Severn? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a history of people removing non-publically accessable crossings. There is no justification for this. This is not a list of public crossings of the River Thames - it is a list of ALL crossings of the river thames. The Thames Tunnel used by the former East London Line is not currently accessable by the public so should that be removed also? No! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.152.206 ( talk) 16:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the list of former subdivisions that was added for the following reasons:
That said, a summary sentence at the beginning of the article such as "The River is currently the boundary between x, y, z and was the ancient boundary between a, b c" would probably satisfy this. I'll have a go at writing that. MRSC ( talk) 06:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
As an early contributor to this article, I was considerably distressed by the mess I found it in when I looked at it just now. Half the length of the river was tabulated, and half was the original listing. I have no problem with tabulation in principal, although to be truthful I think it looked better as a list. However if the editor who had decided to turn it into a tabulation had managed to finish the work, I would have left well alone.
But it is clearly insupportable to have an article in this state for three months with no clear prospect of it being sorted out. So I have taken the drastic step of reverting the article back to the state it was in before the tabulation started. I apologise to all the other editors whose work I have reverted in the process, but I couldn't see any other way of dealing with this. I will go through all the changes, and try and reintroduce them as appropriate. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that the following hatnote has been added and removed a couple of times today:
Given that List of Bridges in London redirects here, i.e. this is the only article about bridges in London, I believe the hatnote is appropriate. It would also avoid a disambiguation page with just two entries as London bridges is now. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Am I alone in finding it strange that the list includes certain cable crossings? There might be justification if the list included bridge heights, but it doesn't. I would also exclude cable tunnels, which come into the same category as (non-public) weir crossings that aren't included. I see no problem with including tunnels which don't currently have any public use - they may return, as with the Thames Tunnel - but let's not include proposed crossings, the list is too volatile. Chris55 ( talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Every lock on the navigable river has a weir across the main stream. There is a full river crossing at a lock only when the weir has a walkway across it that is deemed safe enough for public access. Examples of these can be seen in the pictures at Hambledon Lock, Benson Lock and Abingdon Lock. Most weir walkways are closed to public access and some weirs have no walkway at all. Crossing at the lock itself is usually across the lock gates, although I can think of Boulter's Lock and Romney Lock which have separate footbridges (but no weir access). So a crossing at a lock should be described as via the weir walkway rather a bridge. Regards Motmit ( talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The course of the Thames splits into different channels through Ashton Keynes. It is unclear which is the main channel, if indeed there is one. Large scale OS maps seem to indicate that the main channel heads north between Waterhay Bridge and High Bridge, and runs alongside the High Road to the north of the village. The channel that continues under High Bridge and Three Bridges becomes the Swill Brook, but it does connect to the Thames via another channel which joins it at Pike Corner. There are other channels that are making me even more confused. See
[1]
So are we correct to state that High Bridge and Three Bridges are Thames crossings? Or are all the bridges along the High Road (not currently mentioned in the article) Thames crossings - instead or also?
Bazonka (
talk)
18:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Radcot Bridge is listed as opening in 1787, yet the article for Radcot bridge states that it was last "largly" rebuilt just after the Wars of the Roses which ended in 1485. Why is it listed as opening nearly 300 years later?
Somehow, during the great tablification a couple of years ago, the Bakerloo line got out of sequence. It is in fact upstream/South of the Hungerford bridges, as seen in this plan drawing. It is also shown this way on Open Street Map, running from Northumberland Avenue to the northern edge of Jubilee Gardens. Google Maps shows something similar. I blame Harry Beck for the error, as it's always been shown the other way on the diagrammatic Tube Map. I've put it back where it belongs. -- rbrwr ± 10:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of crossings of the River Thames. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external%2FItem&sp=ZEmergency+Thames+Bridge&sp=238967&sp=XWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking for any feedback on my changes to List of crossings of the River Thames#London to Windsor where I am fetching relevant data from Wikidata instead of defining it locally. There is a handy link to the Wikidata item (click the pencil icon) if any data needs adding or changing. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
How does one edit the entry for Benson Lock in this section? The code is {{Wdtable row/bridge1|qid=Q4890269|notes= }}. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
|c3=
for column 3. Let me know if you need any assistance. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
12:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The opening paragraph lists one ford, but I can find no mention of it in the rest of the page. Since this page is already more than just a list, but includes some history I would expect to see a reference to fords in the past, perhaps why they are not relevent today or their replacement by bridges. IceDragon64 ( talk) 14:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC) ^ Have edited page. Am happy now. :)
There are several bare url refs in the tables that ought to be formatted, with a title and a date added to the url. One url is “access forbidden”, others are dead and cannot be marked as such or replaced with a live link. I tried to do this task, but I could not get at the bare url refs in the table itself. I am not sure why. I hope someone who knows where to find the refs can do the work. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 02:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I notice that the proposed KenEx - [2] Tunnel is not on the list of proposed crossings. Should it be? Abeorch ( talk) 12:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
There used be crossing between Erith and Rainham (Essex) by ferry. There is a plaque that marks the eight hundredth anniversary of the start of the Rainham to Erith and is one of the least known artifacts in Erith as very few locals are even aware that it that is there and was erected on the wall next to the wooden jetty adjacent to Erith Riverside Gardens back in 1999. The Pilgrim's Ferry began in the year 1199 and was used to allow people to cross the River Thames between Erith and Coldharbour Point in Rainham. There was an unsuccessful campaign back in 2010 / 2011 to try and get the ferry service restarted, as part of the "London Loop". The ferry last apparently ran on a regular daily basis back in 1854. Many years later Ford would run their own ferry until 2004 between Dagenham and Belvedere. It is a shame since the closest foot crossing is the Woolwich Foot Tunnel and the closest crossing by road is the Dartford Tunnel despite the fact the Erith pier and the Coldharbour Point Lighthouse can be seen from their sides of the River Thames. - 2A02:C7C:53C1:E00:998C:E4F2:A2FD:AE29 ( talk) 08:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)